Skip to main content

Full text of "Ionia and the East : six lectures delivered before the University of London"

See other formats







S&. : *;v 




V.- ffl 




























Introduction to the Problem .... 7 

The Ionians before Ionia 24 

Ionia 42 

The Overland Route 64 

The Levant Route 82 

Conclusion 99 



The purpose of these lectures is generally to consider the 
circumstances under which Hellenic civilization, properly 
so called, came into being, and in particular, the origin of 
that brilliant Ionian society which a French writer has 
named le printemps de la Grece. Some fresh light and, 
it must be admitted, not a little fresh darkness have been 
shed upon the matter by recent archaeological discoveries. 
Some of these I can describe at first hand : others I am in some 
position to appreciate from having borne a part in similar 
research, and having gained experience during the last twenty 
years of wellnigh all the eastern Mediterranean lands whose 
divers civilizations had relat'ons with the Ionian. 

On the great interest of this question of Ionian origins 
to all students of antiquity, nay, to all students of civiliza- 
tion, I need not waste many words. Even in the face of 
recent discoveries at Sparta, it may be said without hesita- 
tion that the Greeks of western Asia Minor produced the 
first full bloom of what we call pure Hellenism, that is, 
a Greek civilization come to full consciousness of itself, 
and destined to attain the highest possibilities of the Hel- 
lenic genius. Whatever its claim to absolute priority in 
culture, however, the Ionian section of the Hellenic race, • 
from the accident of geographical position, served more 
than any other for a vital link between East and West, 
and imposed its individual name on Oriental terminology 
as the designation of the whole Greek people. All who 
follow the development of free social institutions must 
regard with peculiar interest the land where the City State 
of Hellenic type first grew to adolescence. Students not 
only of literature, but of all the means of communication 
between man and man, know that it was in Ionia that the 


alphabet took the final shape in which the Greeks were to 
carry it about the civilized world. And who, that belongs 
to, or cares for, the republic of art, would ignore that ' bel 
elan de genie duquel est nee la statuaire attique ' ? 

Two theories have been propounded to account for the 
sudden appearance of a very high civilization in Ionia at 
the opening of the historic age. They are not necessarily 
mutually exclusive, and neither is necessarily false. But 
both were advanced rather as hypotheses to explain sub- 
sequent historic phenomena than as deductions from pre- 
historic evidence ; and though both have found large 
acceptance, the statement of them has always been vague. 
The first was that associated with the name of Ernst Curtius, 
who postulated the existence of a prehistoric Indo-European 
population in western Anatolia. This he held to be not 
aboriginal, but an earlier migratory wave of the same 
great stock which was to throw off the European Hellenes. 
The proto-Ionians, as he called them, who had branched 
off and entered Asia Minor by way of the north-western 
corner, had already established there a culture of Hellenic 
type ere the historic Ionian Migration from mainland Greece 
reached Asia. It was out of the amalgamation of this 
culture of theirs with that of their kindred, who subse- 
quently joined them, stimulated further by Mesopotamian 
influences, that the historic Ionian civilization sprang 
with amazing rapidity to full growth. This theory, at 
the time it was propounded, was probable enough, but 
incapable of proof. Practically nothing could be adduced 
to illustrate the supposed culture of either of those Indo- 
European stocks before their fusion. From the little known 
of the Lydian language, from the Greek tradition of the 
origin of the Phrygians, from probable inference as to the 
racial character of certain pre-Ionian racial elements in 
Ionia, for example, the Lelegian and the Carian, Curtius 
could claim some justification for his pre-Ionian Indo- 
European in Asia Minor. But all further deduction re- 
mained ' in the air '. 

The second theory was the outcome of the subsequent 


revelation of prehistoric Aegean civilization. It has taken 
the form of a general asseveration that Ionian civilization 
was essentially a survival of the Aegean, a Nachleben mykeni- 
scher Cultur. There were, however, no documents of early 
Ionian culture sufficient to prove or disprove this view, 
which was, perhaps, in the main an inference from Homer. 
The Epos, supposed by many to have taken shape at Ionian 
courts, was argued to reflect a sub-Mycenean civilization. 
Ergo, there was such a civilization in Ionia. 

This theory, as I have said, is not necessarily exclusive 
of the first. It might, on the contrary, be held comple- 
mentary and explanatory, determining the nature of the 
original culture shared by the two contributory kindred 
stocks of Curtius's creed. But so far as I know, no one 
who propounded the theory, ever explained precisely 
whether it was both, or only one of those stocks, which 
had formerly shared the full Aegean civilization ; whether 
this civilization had been domiciled of old on the west 
Anatolian coast, or only been introduced by the Ionian 
Migration ; or whether the proto-Ionian shared it at all. 
Those who held the view, most recently expounded in sub- 
stance by Professor Ridgeway, that the Lelegian stock of 
western Asia Minor was of close kin to the European 
Pelasgic, and that the latter was the author of things 
Mycenean, inclined to regard Aegean culture as having been 
shared from an early period by the Anatolian coastlands. 
But they could not adduce sufficient archaeological evidence 
to raise their theory out of the region of hypothesis. Except 
at Hissarlik in the extreme north-west and at one or two 
points on Carian and Rhodian territory in the extreme 
south, the eastern shore of the Aegean had yielded nothing 
whatever pertaining to Aegean culture. 

The adherents of both theories held also, in somewhat 
indefinite language, that much of the impulse to develop 
a culture higher than that prevailing previously either in 
the region from which the colonists had come, or among 
the littoral peoples of Asia Minor itself, resulted from 
Ionian contact with certain older civilizations of the East, 


notably the Mesopotamian. With this last region, however, 
the early Ionians, it was thought, had no direct communica- 
tion, but only secondary relations through intermediary 
societies. These communicated Eastern influences both by 
V land and by sea, and among them the Syro-Cappadocian 
or ' Hittite ' society radiating its influence through Phrygia 
and Lydia, and the Phoenician, which had been pushing 
its trade in a westerly direction during the post-Aegean 
Dark Age, were the chief. Thanks to such relations, the 
Ionians received the model of commercial society and 
certain things indispensable to its progress, notably alpha- 
betic writing and a coined medium of exchange, and at 
the same time became cognizant of processes of manu- 
facture and art already well developed elsewhere. Thus 
encouraged, the natural genius of the Ionian race developed 
with remarkable rapidity. It soon outgrew its instructors 
and became, to some extent, their teacher, partly through 
a further colonial effort by which Ionia planted Ionians 
far outside the cradle of their original civilization. In 
particular it reacted on the land from which the first 
colonists had come, the easternmost part of the Greek 
peninsula, and was largely responsible for the rise of Attic 

What was held thus about the origin of Ionian civilization 
was held also in some degree about the origin of all that 
earliest civilization in Asia Minor, which the later Greeks 
ascribed to colonization from Europe, but differentiated 
as Dorian or Aeolic. But it was believed that the Ionian 
settlers had had the fortune to fall among a race more 
nearly kin to the Hellenic than were the Carian tribes of 
the south-western littoral, or the Mysians of the north. 
Hence the Ionian development proved the more peaceful 
and rapid, and attained to a higher plane of culture. 

This is, I think, a fair summary of the most generally 
received opinion based on the researches and arguments of 
many authorities who wrote in the latter half of the last 
century. Opinion, and nothing more, however, it had to 
remain. The origin of any particular ancient culture is 


necessarily an archaeological question. Some other culture, 
contemporary with its beginnings, may have already de- 
veloped a literature, and this may chance to make allusion 
to it. But such allusion can hardly be expected to throw 
any but dim and uncertain light, since, ex hypothesi, we are 
inquiring about a remote age, prior to the development of 
lively human curiosity about alien peoples. In this par- 
ticular case, as it happens, the origin of what was actually 
the earliest civilization, which developed any extant litera- 
ture inspired by such curiosity, is under discussion. Literary 
evidence concerning the origin of Ionian civilization is to 
be derived from authorities of which the earliest were 
necessarily posterior by some centuries. Their references 
are seldom to be understood, and never safely to be applied, 
without the help of archaeology. Such are the Greek records 
of local tradition, Greek archaeological statements of long 
bygone fact, and Greek archaeological ratiocination, ex- 
pressed by writers earlier than the establishment of any 
objective standards for appraising archaeological evidence. 
As examples of such literature, bearing conscious and 
unconscious reference to the early story of Hellenic civiliza- 
tion, we have, on the one hand, the body of lays, which form 
the basis, at any rate, of the Homeric Iliad and of most of 
the Cyclic fragments which have survived ; and, on the other, 
an historical work, written by an Asiatic Greek of great 
perspicacity and learning not much more than half-way 
through the first millennium B.C. Herodotus recorded not 
only much antecedent fact, but also local traditions of his day 
in regard to this very matter. To these authorities I shall 
often refer later, and I only pause at this stage to enforce 
my point about the comparative difficulty of understanding 
and the danger of applying the evidence of early literature 
to such a question as the origin of a civilization without 
invoking the help of archaeological evidence, by reminding 
you of two facts. Firstly, the most close study of the 
Homeric Epos in no way enabled scholars to assign to the 
culture, there reflected, its just relative position in the 
development of Aegean man, but, on the contrary, caused 


a settled predisposition to mistake the times and places of 
his highest development. Secondly, Herodotus alone among 
extant Greek authors made any certain allusion to that 
remarkable early society of eastern Asia Minor, the Syro- 
Cappadocian or Hatti ; but his allusion excited little or 
no curiosity, and the society in question was not held of 
any account whatever, until hardly a generation ago. In 
fact, the measure of its necessary relation to the origins of 
that very Greek civilization, about which the Halicarnassian 
showed himself so curious, has yet to be appraised. 

On archaeology, therefore, fell, and falls, the burden of 
proof in this inquiry. But archaeology, whatever its compe- 
tence nowadays, was certainly in a very poor position to offer 
evidence up to the end of the nineteenth century. In the 
first place, it should have been able to take cognizance of a 
large and various body of material documents, illustrative 
not only of Ionian culture itself in its earliest stages, but 
also of the precedent condition in which the aboriginal 
populations of western Asia Minor and the future settlers 
from Europe were for some time before the latter passed 
across the Aegean Sea. In the second place, if it could 
claim adequate knowledge of the greater Eastern societies, 
by which Ionian culture was supposed to have been stimu- 
lated, it needed to have equal knowledge of the intermediary 
societies occupying the routes, whether by land or sea, over 
which the Mesopotamian and Nilotic influences had to 
travel westwards. What, however, was the case ? With- 
out necessarily implying that it is in many respects different 
now, let me state it briefly as it stood at the close of the 
nineteenth century. 

As regards Ionia itself, the tale of local documents relating 
to early stages of its cultural development was miserably 
short. Excavators have spent as much time and money 
on sites of west Asia Minor during the past generation as 
on any others round the Mediterranean. Prior to 1900 
the exploration of Pergamum had been prosecuted on a 
large scale for nearly a quarter of a century. Before that 
the British excavations at Halicarnassus and Cnidus began 


and the superficial examinations of certain sites in the lower 
valley of the Maeander had been concluded. Ephesus, both 
town and temple, had been searched by Wood and aban- 
doned ; but the town had already been reopened and 
been in process of re-examination for some years by the 
Austrian Archaeological Institute. Magnesia-on-Maeander 
was considered to have yielded up its secrets and all spoils, 
worth removal, to Humann and his colleagues. Priene 
had been finished by Wiegand and Miletus begun. 

But of all these explorations — several of them most 
considerable enterprises — one thing can be said alike. 
They never served to expose any stratum of remains 
which could be referred to the early morning, still less to 
the dawn, of Hellenic civilization in western Asia. The 
nearest approaches to primitive strata were made by British 
explorers. At Branchidae Newton had the fortune to find 
certain relics of Ionian art of the seventh and sixth centuries 
on the surface of the soil, and at Ephesus Wood penetrated 
downwards to the remains of the Artemisium of the latter 
century, but there stopped short. Almost all the other 
great excavations were conducted without apparent inten- 
tion to explore early strata. At Pergamum, Magnesia, and 
Priene the object of the explorers was to recover Hellenistic 
and Graeco-Roman evidence, mainly of an architectural 
nature, and the sites chosen were not such as offered good 
hope of anything of earlier date. The Roman city of 
Ephesus must have been built at one point or another over 
strata resultant from inhabitation since the earliest Ionian 
days ; but, during ten years of excavation, the Austrian 
explorers of the city have not touched those strata, and have 
been content to lay bare pavements and structures of 
Imperial times. 

There is one notable exception, however, to be taken to 
this rule, that excavations conducted on any considerable 
scale in Hellenic Asia had so far not been directed to 
the earlier strata : that is, of course, the exploration of 
Hissarlik by Schliemann and Dorpfeld. Here you do not 
need to be reminded that an early site was probed to the 


bottom, and that successive layers were examined, which 
contained documents going far behind the earliest stage 
of Hellenic culture in Asia Minor. Apart, however, from 
the general prejudice, which long prevailed, against recog- 
nizing a causative relation between the prehistoric and 
the historic cultures of the Hellenic area, the particular 
circumstances of Hissarlik served to make scholars slow to 
admit a connexion between its remains and the Ionian 
question. The site lies comparatively remote from that 
part of the Anatolian coast where the higher Hellenic 
culture first developed. The remains of the earlier, and by 
far the most considerable, periods at Hissarlik attach them- 
selves to a class distinct in certain respects from the general 
culture of prehistoric Greece, and not observed at all in Ionia. 
The remains, which were actually referred to the opening 
of the historic period, were scanty and illustrative of local 
decadence ; while others, which might also have been so 
referred, were confused with strata of earlier periods, and 
their significance was mistaken. The upshot was that 
from first to last the exploration of Hissarlik failed materi- 
ally to affect the discussion of the Ionian problem. 

For the earliest material documents of Ionian history, 
therefore, scholars had to look in the main to a small number 
of comparatively late Ionian architectural and sculptura 
remains, of which very few had been found in Ionia itself, 
and the exiguous majority came from Carian territory or 
Aegean isles, notably Delos ; to coins, of which the earliest 
were not dated before the seventh century ; and to a very 
few archaic inscriptions, whereof the very earliest again were 
not ascribed to quite so early a period. There had, indeed, 
been discovered a few local relics of human handiwork which 
were acknowledged to be more ancient. Such were the 
famous - Sesostris ' figures on the cliffs of the Kara Bel near 
Nymphi ; the ' Niobe ' and some other primitive remains 
in Mount Sipylus ; and also the ruined * Tantalus Tomb ' 
of Aeolic Smyrna and certain traces of a neighbouring 
settlement, and of shrines, forts, and look-out places in the 
hills behind. But the ' Sesostris ' figures and the ' Niobe ' 


were put out of court as Syro-Cappadocian memorials of a 
foreign and brief invasion from far inland ; and the scanty 
1 Tantalus ' remains had to bear witness alone in Ionia to 
proto-Ionian civilization. 

If one turned to the lands marching with Ionia on the 
continental side, the case of archaeology appeared little 
better. Lydia was (and for that matter still is) the least 
productive district of Asia Minor from an archaeological 
point of view, despite the commerce, culture, and power with 
which history credits it while Ionian civilization was in the 
making. There had been no scientific digging in Lydian 
soil. There was no local monument of any importance 
recognized as Lydian. No inscriptions, certainly Lydian, 
had been found in Lydia. That is enough to say for my 
present purpose. To state more fully how Lydia should 
be related to the Ionian problem, I shall return to it in 
a subsequent lecture. 

And what of the bordering lands on south and north ? 
The partial excavation of Assarlik had taught us, before 
1900, that Aegean influence, or perhaps a few Aegean 
settlers, had come to Caria towards the close of the Bronze 
Age and there promoted a derivative culture of an in- 
significant kind. More than this, indeed, was to be in- 
ferred from Greek tradition ; but there was no archaeological 
proof. A little better knowledge had been obtained about 
the great neighbouring island of Rhodes. There, too, the 
earliest local documents, the contents of certain graves 
at Ialysus, showed participation in the latest development 
of Aegean civilization ; and the story could be brought 
down across the dark gap between the Aegean and the 
Hellenic epochs. The discoveries made by the brothers 
Biliotti at Camirus illustrated a productive culture, active 
in the seventh century B.C. and obviously related to that of 
the earlier Hellenic period in western Greek lands, including 
southern Italy, and in Etruria. But beside this relation, 
scholars saw another to non-Greek culture, particularly to 
that of contemporary Egypt. To account for it they 
called in Phoenician intermediaries, reminding us how 


handily Rhodes lies in relation to the westward sea-ways of 
the Semitic folk. It was the Camirus graves more than 
anything else, except perhaps certain discoveries in Cyprus 
with which I shall deal later, that led archaeologists to 
endorse the common belief in a heavy and various Greek 
debt to Phoenicia. 

North of the Ionian belt the curious temple-reliefs of 
Assos had created the impression that Aeolic Hellenism 
had come early into close relation with, and been powerfully 
influenced by, non-Hellenic influences ; and certain other 
discoveries in Mysia, notably the Neandrian volute-capital 
and an early Neandrian building, supposed to be a temple, 
had strengthened that belief. The extensive spoil of the 
Myrina graves fell almost entirely in an epoch too late to be 
instructive as to Ionian origins : but stray objects from 
Aeolic coast cemeteries at Cyme, Aegae, and Pitane seemed 
to confirm the evidence of Assos. Whence and how these 
Eastern influences, however, came to the Greek settlers, 
and how much antecedent culture the latter themselves had 
brought over sea, no one pretended to determine. 

This last item in the Problem, the cultural equipment 
possessed by the early Hellenic colonists at the moment 
of their departure from Europe, was the least known of 
all the factors. But before we consider it, let us finish for 
the time with Asia by taking summary stock of the know- 
ledge possessed before 1900, concerning the channels through 
which influences of Mesopotamia and Egypt must have 
passed to Ionia. It was recognized that, if these influences 
came overland, they must have filtered through the area 
of a lately rediscovered society of eastern Asia Minor and 
northern Syria, which students called the ' Syro-Cappa- 
docian ' or the ' Hittite '. Links in a possible chain of 
westward connexion had been suggested by the observations 
of Perrot and Ramsay regarding Syro-Cappadocian features 
in the earlier monumental art of Phrygia, and by Sayce's 
brilliant inference, based on the rock sculptures of western 
Lydia and other monumental and traditional evidence, 
that Lydia had once been a ' Hittite satrapy '. For various 


reasons, however, this chain was not regarded as of much 
importance. Scholars were more inclined to think that 
Eastern influences reached the coast, if overland at all, 
through an early north-westward extension of the Phrygian 
people than through Lydia, which was held to have been 
comparatively barbarian and insignificant before the 
establishment of the Mermnad dynasty, early in the seventh 
century B.C., and to have owed most of its higher culture 
to reflex influences of Ionia itself. Even Phrygia was 
regarded as, in her turn, largely indebted to similar reflex 
influences for the culture which has left us the magnificent 
rock monuments of the Sangarius basin, and in particular 
for her alphabetic system of writing ; while a connexion 
between her early society and the Syro-Cappadocian, though 
assumed, could not be presented as a certain or momentous 
factor in the evolution of Western culture, so long as scarce 
half a dozen widely spaced monuments of Cappadocian 
character had been detected this side of the Halys and 
none of Phrygian character on the other side. In fact 
the whole area of Syro-Cappadocian civilization remained 
too little known, and its monuments north of the Taurus 
too few and sporadic, for much weight to be assigned to its 
influence by those who were speculating on the origin of 
Western culture. In spite of the repeatedly expressed 
views of Ramsay, Sayce, Perrot, and others, the ' Hittite ' 
continued to be envisaged largely as a Syrian civilization 
which had spread north of Taurus only partially and tem- 
porarily, and was more likely to have transmitted its 
influence by sea through the Phoenicians of Syria than over 
continental ways of Asia Minor. 

To the Phoenicians, indeed, scholars continued to credit 
the vast bulk of such education as the Greek races were 
believed to have owed to the East. The advent of their 
effective influence into the Aegean area was still dated by 
many far back in the pre-Hellenic period, on the strength 
of several of the finer objects among Mycenean remains, 
particularly those which seemed to have reference to cult. 
Main stations on the westward sea-way of the Semites were 



found in Cyprus, Rhodes, and Crete. As for Cyprus, after 
the remarkable treasure of Salaminian graves at Enkomi 
had come to light, it was seen that the usual assumption of 
a Phoenician origin for Cypriote art needed serious revision. 
But the continued ascription of many of the finer objects 
in that treasure to Eastern sources and a dispute about the 
dating of the whole obscured the bearing of its evidence, 
although Messrs. Myres and Richter, in their Catalogue of 
the Cyprus Museum issued in 1899, showed a just apprecia- 
tion of the facts. Rhodian archaic civilization was held in 
debt to Phoenicia chiefly on the strength of the objects 
found at Camirus, which have already been mentioned, 
and the Cretan on the strength of the early bronzes extracted 
from the Idaean cave. Add to these archaeological observa- 
tions the strong presumption in favour of Phoenician in- 
fluence having formed primitive Hellenic art and com- 
merce, which was derived from allusions in Homer, and 
statements made by Greek archaeological historians ; from 
the early legends of Thebes ; from philological explanations 
of the names of those Greek places and divinities which 
seemed not to be Indo-European ; and last, but not least, 
from the yet unquestioned Phoenician origin of the Ionian 
alphabet — add all this and it will not appear wonderful that 
such protests as were made by M. Salomon Reinach in his 
Mirage Oriental, and by Mr. Arthur Evans in his first articles 
on the Cretan script, did not materially weaken the Semitic 
position. Scholars remained content to allow a margin for 
Mesopotamian influences transmitted overland through the 
Syro-Cappadocian area, and for Egyptian influences exercised 
on Greek soldiers and merchants who went from western Asia 
Minor to the Nile Valley under the New Empire and thence 
returned. But they continued to credit ' the grave Tyrian 
trader ' with transmitting at least nine-tenths of the Oriental 
stimulus which acted on the nascent culture of archaic 

Finally, let us look to the views held about the Ionian 
colonists themselves, and the equipment of civilization with 
which they were believed to have set sail. There is the less 


to say on this head, because there was no very definite 
view held. Too little, in fact, was known of primitive 
Greece. There were those, indeed, who argued that the 
colonization did not all come from Greek ports, but in part 
from inner Thrace across the straits. Such a possibility, 
however, threw no light on the precedent culture of the 
colonists ; for even less was known of primitive Thrace 
than of primitive Greece. A few archaeologists called 
attention to the early mid-European culture of the latest 
Bronze Age and earliest Age of Iron, of which remains had 
been found in abundance, especially in the upper and middle 
sections of the Danube basin. Here, they suggested, was 
evidence that the northern tribes did not descend on Greece 
from a wholly barbarous area. This fruitful observation 
however, failed of its full effect, thanks to the rooted pre- 
judice in favour of deriving the Hellenes directly from an 
original Asiatic home by way of easternmost Europe, 
without contamination with mid-European 'barbarians'. 

There were others, again, who began to look tentatively 
to the Mycenean and sub-Mycenean remains of Attica and 
neighbouring coasts for a solution of this factor in the 
problem. But even those who held very reasonably that 
the contents of the early graves at Menidi and Spata, the 
' Mycenean ' sherds found in the lowest stratum on the 
Athenian Acropolis, and the constituent parts of the 
Aeginetan Treasure, covered the whole period usually 
assigned to the Ionian colonization, and bore witness to 
a culture which could not have been without great effect 
on the colonists ere their departure — even these scholars 
hesitated to regard Mycenean or sub-Mycenean objects 
as products of a culture which could have been itself in any 
part Ionic. To many varieties of creed touching the query, 
' Who made the objects called Mycenean ? ' — to quote 
it in Professor Ridge way's terms — certain articles of belief 
long remained common, with hardly an exception ; namely, 
that the makers of those objects and the Ionians were 
wholly distinct peoples : that the latter came from the 
north at the end of the Bronze Age ; and that their earliest 

b 2 


efforts in art were represented by the geometric ' Dipylon * 
style which was not in any sense Aegean. 

Objections to various articles in this accepted creed 
concerning the origins of Ionian civilization were obvious 
and already expressed. The most obvious, perhaps, 
touched the last article with which I have dealt — the 
postulate that this civilization owed its inception in large 
part to colonists of a race which had produced nothing truly 
artistic in any previous stage of its migrations — no thing r 
at least, of which actual evidence had been found, despite 
the fact that in their penultimate stage the colonists had 
passed across the well-searched soil of Attica. Even if the 
' Dipylon ' objects could be accepted as witnesses to nascent 
Ionic art, they seemed to fall in a period subsequent 
to the colonization. It was generally supposed that the 
colonists passed on after none but the shortest stay in western 
Greece and equipped with nothing more than an exceptional 
' innate instinct for humanism \ This instinct, encounter- 
ing on the further shore the fresh and mighty breath of 
Asia, would be fecundated with a wholly new embryon of 

There is, of course, a measure of truth in this long-accepted 
theory of the Ionian migration. But a scientific sense 
trained in the school of evolution cannot but check at the 
lack of causation and the abruptness of development 
implied in the explanation as it stood. In particular, one 
may fairly hesitate to accept ' an innate instinct for human- 
ism ' as the sole or even the main asset of a migratory race 
destined within a very few generations to develop the 
highest artistic and social culture of the age — a culture, 
moreover, which was strongly individual. To credit it is, 
in fact, to be imbued with the spirit of Ottfried Muller and 
his school of Hellenists — that school which so long denied 
any alien parentage to Greek culture. Even, nowadays, 
its prejudice against including the origin of Hellenic civiliza- 
tion among things capable of a scientific evolutionary 
explanation is not quite extinct. Both in this country and 
in Germany Hellenism has so far become a cult, that it seems 


to have votaries still who are slow to admit its obligation to 
anything but revealed light. The fathering of the Greek 
on the pre-existing profane cultures has been scouted by 
perfervid Hellenists in terms which imply that they hold it 
little else than impiety. Allowing no causation more earthly 
than vague local influences of air and light, mountain and sea, 
they would have Hellenism born into the world by a miracle 
of generation, like its own Athena from the head of Zeus. 

Objection was also taken to that article in the accepted 
creed, which was mainly due to Ernst Curtius, namely, 
that on the other side of the Aegean the Ionic colonists 
found a proto-Ionian people, whose near kinship and 
cultural sympathy went for much in the rapid evolution of 
the subsequent local civilization. This objection could not, 
however, be pressed from sheer inability to prove a negative, 
or even to show much cause in favour of one. To the obvious 
question, Where were the archaeological remains of these 
proto-Ionians ? was returned the equally obvious and, for 
the time, sufficient answer that western Asia Minor was 
most imperfectly surveyed, and its earlier sites had hardly 
been excavated at all. What material documents of Ionic 
civilization had we which did not imply a certain degree 
of adolescence ? in particular, for example, what inscriptions 
which showed forms marking the transition from the parent 
Phoenician ? If documents of infant Ionian culture had not 
yet been discovered, who doubted that such existed ? And 
if these had yet to be found, so too had the proto-Ionian 
documents. This answer could not be gainsaid then. 
It cannot be altogether gainsaid now. 

The third main article in the accepted creed, that the 
Phoenicians acted as the chief transmitters of Oriental 
influences to Ionia, was the most canvassed of all, because 
it involved less faith and more knowledge. It was based 
on the interpretation of a large body of historical data, 
more or less well ascertained, and was not so much as the 
other articles dependent on prehistoric probabilities. The 
Phoenicians, whose credit for influencing Greek civilization 
had not been great with Ottfried Muller and his followers, 


came into great vogue with a later school of German his- 
torians, of which Biisolt was one of the most able leaders. 
But in the latter years of the nineteenth century a reaction 
set in and Semitic claims were often and fiercely challenged. 
There were felt to be certain potent objections to accepting 
Phoenician mediation in art at anything like the value set 
on it by the Biisolt school. Firstly, although the home- 
land of the Phoenicians itself had long been fairly accessible 
to students and was rather widely explored in the early 
sixties, remarkably little evidence of artistic effort had come 
to light there. If objects of uncertain provenience, which 
might have been made in other parts of Syria, and early 
Cypriote antiquities, not found at Kition or at other known 
Phoenician settlements, were ruled out of court, there was 
next to nothing left to testify to Phoenician art in the 
pre-Hellenic age. Secondly, it was objected that so eclectic, 
so derivative, and so unprogressive an art as was that of 
Phoenicia, on the showing even of those who claimed for 
it the widest range of products, was not likely to have 
exerted much influence on so vigorous and sincere an artistic 
spirit as was in the early Greeks. Thirdly, many, like 
Radet when he wrote on Lydia, held justly that possible 
alternative intermediaries between East and West had not 
yet been sufficiently considered. The best assured pre- 
misses of the pro-Semitic argument did not escape attack. 
It was counter-argued that the Homeric evidence for the 
claim had been much overstated, the vast preponderance 
both of seafaring and of artistic production being ascribed 
in the Epics, not to Semites, but to Gods or Greeks. 
Mr. Arthur Evans announced his discovery of an early 
script in Crete which had nothing to do with the Phoenician 
system, and more than hinted that he would call in question 
the supposed debt of Europe to Phoenicia in the matter 
even of writing. But the Anti-Semites, though fit, were 
few, and on the whole the Phoenician claim held its own. 

What was problematical in 1900 is by no means all well 
assured in 1908. But in many respects it is better assured. 
There has been much new light shed, and this I shall try 


to bring to your notice in the lectures to come. The fresh 
evidence I propose to deal with in four geographical divi- 
sions : (1) Western Hellas ; (2) Hellenic Asia ; (3) Inner 
Asia Minor ; (4) Syria, with Cyprus and Egypt. It will 
be, however, neither useful nor, indeed, possible to keep 
these divisions rigidly separate as so many watertight 
compartments. The bearing of any particular exploration 
has often been far from merely local ; and anticipation 
and recapitulation cannot be altogether avoided. 


First of all we must arrive, if possible, at some idea of 
the cultural equipment which the European migrants, 
credited by unanimous Greek tradition with the main part 
in the development of Ionian culture, can have taken with 
them to Asia. We know of two considerable cultures which 
prevailed before that migration in south-eastern Europe, 
and seem to have filled all the geographical area out of 
which it appears the migrants must have come or through 
which it is certain they ultimately passed. These are the 
Danubian and the Aegean, to give them convenient geo- 
graphical names. Both can be followed by their remains 
from the later Age of Stone, through the Age of Bronze, 
to at least the opening of the Age of Iron. Is it probable 
that either or both exercised a formative influence on the 
Ionians before they left Greece for Asia, and can it be shown 
that, in fact, they exercised such influence ? 

To take first the Aegean culture, concerning which by far 
the most varied and important fresh evidence has come 
from excavations in Crete. There is neither time nor 
necessity now to enter upon a detailed description of the 
discoveries made during these excavations. I must assume 
your general acquaintance with them, and limit my dis- 
course to an attempt to estimate their bearing on the 
Ionian problem. Since the Ionian problem is not pro- 
pounded either by literary tradition or by archaeology 
before the last part of the second millennium B.C. at the 
earliest, it will naturally be the latest period of the Aegean 
Age which will chiefly concern our present inquiry. But 
there are also certain broad conclusions to be drawn from 
evidence of earlier Aegean periods, which have important 
bearing on the matter in hand, and should be stated at 
the outset, though very briefly. 


It need hardly be pointed out that a causative relation 
between prehistoric Aegean culture and that later historic 
one, which was developed in the same geographical area, 
has much greater a priori probability, if the former was 
of great antiquity, of local origin, independent in its develop- 
ment, superior both in aim and ultimate achievement, as 
ancient cultures go, and in such communication with other 
high contemporary civilizations as enabled it to share in 
their progress, than if it had not all or not any of these 
qualifications. As a matter of fact, it is proved by its 
remains to have had them all. 

Cretan evidence has established, beyond all possibility of 
cavil, the aboriginal local character and age-long local 
development of the Bronze Age culture of the Aegean. 
There is no longer any question of the latter having been an 
importation due to alien maritime enterprise and not repre- 
sentative of the aboriginal Aegean society ; nor of its 
having been so rapidly and sporadically developed as to 
be without deep social root or more than partial local 
influence. If there were no other proof, the orderly 
development of Aegean ceramic art from the most primitive 
Neolithic ware in unbroken continuity down to the close 
of the Age of Bronze would alone suffice. Nor is the un- 
broken series found only in Crete. At Hissarlik, in the 
Argolid and in the Cyclades, similar evidence of long-con- 
tinued ceramic development has come to hand. 

Furthermore, we now know that the Aegean civilization 
has as much right as any, with which it was contemporary, 
to be regarded as an independent one. To say this is not, 
of course, to exclude the effect of foreign influences, about 
which I mean to speak presently. A civilization, after 
reaching a certain height of achievement, never fails to 
profit by achievements of other contemporary civilizations. 
As it grows it establishes communications far and wide, 
and borrows what it wants where it may. But if at the 
same time it gives a quid pro quo ; if it transforms what 
it borrows ; if it maintains a distinct individuality in the 
leading categories of social expression, in its art, for example, 


and its system of written communication, then it must be 
called independent on any reasonable acceptation of that 
epithet. Such the Aegean civilization remained throughout 
its long history. Its art, whatever alien influence it betrays, 
expresses itself from first to last with distinct individuality. 
It can always be said of its products, as was said at the 
outset by Sir Charles Newton of the so-called ' island stones ' 
(i.e. certain engraved gems first found in the Cyclades), 
that they cannot possibly be mistaken for products of any 
other art. While, as for its system of written communi- 
cation, no one has ever felt a moment's doubt that it 
was of local origin, developed locally out of an independent 
pictographic script, and modified during long ages without 
reference to any other system. 

In the third place, this local and independent civilization 
is shown by its monuments to have attained a height of 
achievement which entitles it to be set on a par with its 
highest contemporaries. This fact, not made clear before 
the Cretan revelations, is of peculiar importance to our 
present inquiry, since it must profoundly modify our former 
predisposition to look to the Nilotic or Mesopotamian areas 
for all the external impulse towards the higher planes of 
culture, which classical Mediterranean civilization can have 
experienced. It can hardly be asserted too strongly that 
Hellenic civilization, so far from being the first light shed 
on barbaric darkness in its own area, was in fact but a re- 
illumination, which was long ere it equalled the fullness 
of former brightness ; and that the same soil, in which it 
was ultimately to flourish, had already borne a bloom 
splendid enough to create cultural influences quite as long- 
lasting and stimulating as any of Egypt or Babylon. Even 
if we must suppose this bloom faded or dead before Hellenic 
civilization, strictly so called, arose (though how far its 
decay had gone and whether equally far in all parts is 
still a most open question), the fact of its ever having 
reached such excellence introduces a fresh factor into the 
Ionian problem. 

Finally, we are now in a position to say that intercourse 


between civilized continental societies of Africa and Asia 
on the one hand, and Aegean societies on the other, was 
far more frequent and close in the prehistoric period than 
it would be again till comparatively late in the historic 

On the evidence for relations between the Aegean culture 
and that of Egypt, from an early period contemporary 
even with some part of the Old Empire, and culminating 
under the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, I need 
not dwell. It is well known, and has been set forth lately 
in sufficient detail in the very accessible work of Professor 
R. M. Burrows. The cumulative result of that evidence 
carries conviction to all who have studied the subject. 
There is a doubt how far back into Egyptian history we 
may push these relations, and a doubt as to the absolute 
date of the first epoch at which they appear to have become 
fully reciprocal, that, namely, of the Twelfth Dynasty. But 
there is now no doubt whatever of the effective character 
of those relations henceforward and of their influence on 
the culture of the middle and later parts of the Bronze 
Age. Under the first Dynasties of the New Empire, if not 
earlier, it is clear that the Egyptians and the Kefts of 
Crete and other Aegean isles and coasts were perfectly 
well known to each other, maintained direct and constant 
intercourse, and experienced mutual modification. In 
a word, the Aegean was open to, and overrun by, Nilotic 
influences long before the Hellenic period. 

Can the same be said of Asiatic influences ? The answer 
is not so easy and assured. So far, neither have objects un- 
doubtedly Mesopotamian been found on Aegean sites nor 
objects undoubtedly Aegean in Mesopotamia. But Aegean 
influence has begun to be suspected in the latter region. 
Certain ivories found in the early deposit of the Ephesian 
Artemisium have lately recalled attention to certain others, 
found forty years ago by Layard in the palace of Senna- 
cherib at Nimrud. The latter are in the British Museum, 
and, always a puzzle to archaeologists, have been labelled 
Phoenician. They will come up again for consideration 


later on, and I will only note here that one of the fragments, 
showing the head of a bull, is as Aegean in style as anything 
of the Later Minoan art ever found in Crete or the Argolid. 
Nor is this the only piece which seems clearly to attest 
some infiltration of Aegean artistic influence into inner 
Asia. Through what channel that current may have passed 
I shall suggest in another connexion. 

If direct barter of products and influences between the 
Aegean area and Mesopotamia has left little trace, that is 
only what is to be expected ; for there were secondary 
cultures geographically interposed between the two regions. 
It is more reasonable to look for evidence of communica- 
tion and intercourse between Aegean society and societies 
of Syria and Asia Minor. This subject has not yet been 
worked out ; but already it has been noticed that there 
are several important features common in a greater or less 
degree, on the one hand to the Aegean cultural area, and 
on the other either to the Hittite or to the Syrian Semitic 
area, or to both. Unfortunately, the west Asiatic societies 
of the second millennium B.C. are still but very slightly 
known, and their homelands have not been scientifically 
searched for those smaller objects of antiquity, which were 
most generally exchanged, and dropped along trade-routes. 
The only points, in fact, at which deep excavations have 
yet been made on sites of the required age lie in Philistia 
and southern Palestine ; at Sinjerli and Sakjegozu in 
northern Syria ; and at Boghazkeui in north-western Cappa- 
docia. At Gezer, Tell es-Safi, and other south Syrian sites 
enough Aegean pottery and weapons and structures of 
Aegean type have been found to prove that Cretan com- 
munication with the south-eastern Levantine shores in the 
Late Minoan Period was not limited to Egypt — a fact 
which might, indeed, have been inferred in any case from 
the tradition which connected the Cretan Minos with Gaza 
and its cult of Zeus Cretagenes. As for Sinjerli, its pottery 
and other Kleinfunde have not yet been published, although 
operations ceased on the site not less than fourteen years 
ago. It is devoutly to be hoped that similar difficulties 


will not arise to prevent publication of the smaller objects 
which have been and will be found at Boghazkeui. 

Apart, however, from results of Asiatic excavations, there 
is some very significant evidence that the Aegean and west 
Asiatic areas exerted influence on each other and were 
mutually acquainted. Since this evidence bears but on a 
preliminary point in our present inquiry, I must not do more 
now than direct your attention to its sources. You will find 
one source in the early antiquities of Cyprus, as you might 
expect to do, considering the geographical situation of that 
island, and particularly in those contents of the Enkomi 
graves which are now deposited in the British Museum. 
These objects fall, I believe, very late in the Bronze Age ; 
but they manifestly belong in the main to the Aegean 
culture, and are local products. Look, for example, at the 
finest of all the Enkomi objects, the ivory gaming-casket. 
The hunting-scene carved upon it takes us back without 
doubt to an Assyrian motive. Not directly, however, but 
through Syrian imitations, such as the hunting-scene on the 
Hittite slabs from Sakjegozu, now in Constantinople and 
Berlin. Yet the motive has been treated as neither a Hittite 
nor an Assyrian sculptor would have treated it. You will . 
find more evidence in the obvious community of concep- 1 
tions, held by Aegean religion on the one hand, and by west I 
Asiatic religions on the other ; and also in community of I 
symbolism and cult-representation, which is the surer test, j 
If it is much that in both areas the Divine Spirit is made 
to indwell in sacred trees and pillars, and comes to be 
personified as a Woman, source and controller of all life, 
to whom a Son-Consort is given to render intelligible her 
relation to humanity, it is more that in both areas also 
the baetyl appears in triads and with birds perched atop, 
that the goddess is attended by lions and set on a hill, 
that she bears the double-axe, the bipennis, as at Cnossus 
and at Laodicea on the Orontes, and that she stands between 
animals or birds heraldically opposed, whom she grasps 
with her hands. You will find yet more evidence in the 
common use in the Aegean and Asia of singular forms of 


weapons, such as the shield in the form of a figure of eight ; 
of singular fashions of dress, such as the flounced skirt ; 
of architectural plans, such as the Palace disposed round 
a central court, and of architectural ornaments such as 
the glazed rosette roundel, with which column bases were 
veneered in Babylonia and also in Crete ; of artistic con- 
ventions such as the representation of a triply-bordered 
tunic falling in a point between the legs of figures in profile, 
as at Ivriz and Kara Bel, among Hit tit e monuments, and 
on many Aegean gems. You will find, indeed, evidence 
sufficient by itself to prove close intercourse between 
Crete and western Asia in objects found by me in 190r at 
Zakro — for instance, in those monstrous signet types, 
made on the spot, which recall the demoniac combinations 
of Hittite and Mesopotamian cult representation, and in 
the vases with crescent and disk as relief ornament. 
^ Finally, if any doubt remain, consider the evidence set 

^ forth by Mr. Evans in the Numismatic Chronicle to prove 
the use of the so-called light Babylonian weight-standard 
at Cnossus. 

We have only to prove intercourse ; and it matters not, 

* for our purpose, in which of the two areas these common 
features originated. Intercourse is proved by their mere 
community. But I will remark in passing that the Aegean 
is as likely to have taught Asia as the reverse. The parallel- 
isms on the Asiatic side are more often to be observed in 
Assyrian and later Babylonian art than in the earlier 
Babylonian. Yet it is certain that Aegean art had reached 
its maturity and begun to decay ere there was any Assyrian 
art at all, and before there was a Phoenician art which has 
left us any memorial of itself. If there be any parentage 
between the Aegean art on the one side and the later west 
Asian on the other, the Aegean must be accounted the 
mother art, and responsible for the parallelisms observed 
in the Nimrud ivories, and in the earliest pottery and figurines 
of Phoenicia. These considerations, to my mind, far out- 
weigh that counter-argument, based on the absence of the 
scarab and the cylinder from Crete, upon which Mr. Evans 


once insisted. The absence of the scarab would equally 
disprove intercourse between Crete and Egypt, which is 
absurd. The absence of the cylinder has little significance, 
when it is remembered that very few cylindrical seals have 
actually been found even in Phoenicia — hardly more than, as 
a matter of fact, have occurred in Cyprus. This very incon- 
venient form of seal, perpetuated in Mesopotamia owing 
to lack of stone, was demonstrably supplanted in Syria 
by conical or gable-shaped forms wherewith the required 
impress could be made by a single motion of the hand. Yet 
who would maintain that Syria was not affected by Assyria ? 
I do not say that there was not reciprocity in this matter of 
influence. It is highly probable there was. Lower Meso- 
potamia was a seat of considerable culture at least as early 
as the Aegean ; and once communication between the two 
areas was established through Syrian or Egyptian inter- 
mediaries, Babylonian influences would be felt even in Crete. 
But the balance of influence is in favour of the Aegean. We 
no longer accept without reservation the old adage, Ex 
Oriente lux ! 

So much for the earlier evidence tending to show that a 
native and independent civilization of a very high order, 
developed in close touch with the Eastern civilizations, had 
for ages permeated the Aegean area through which the 
Ionian colonists are supposed to have passed to Asia. Let 
us look forward and try to discern if traditions or influences 
of that civilization survived what is usually regarded as the 
close of the Aegean Age, more particularly in that part of 
mainland Greece whence was derived the Ionian migration. 
The evidence for the state of the Aegean area in what has 
been called the Dark Age is still very scanty and ill-digested. 
This Age is commonly supposed to have resulted from succes- 
sive irruptions of comparatively uncivilized northern tribes, 
strong in the possession of iron weapons, into the area of 
the old and already decadent Aegean society. The latest 
and most effective irruption, it is believed, was the Dorian. 
Certain fresh lights have been cast, albeit somewhat dimly, 
on this period, partly from Crete, partly from Sparta, which 


it will be well to consider before we look finally to the Ionic 
district of Greece. 

The upshot of Mr. Evans's examination of the latest 
remains of the Cnossian Palace, combined with those of a 
smaller building to the west and the contents of a large ceme- 
tery to the north, whose burials were both contemporary 
with, and subsequent to, the destruction of the Palace, ia 
this. There was undoubtedly a cataclysmic moment at 
Cnossus which resulted in wholesale destruction at the end 
of what is called the Second Later Minoan Period, i. e. about 
1400 B. c. Similar cataclysms, it may be added, seem to 
have occurred also on all other important Cretan sites yet 
examined, and at more or less the same moment. But the 
Cnossian Palace, and the smaller building to the west of it, 
were subsequently restored in part and reoccupied by men 
who continued to use the linear Minoan script as well as do- 
mestic and other objects lineally and integrally developed 
out of the pre-cataclysmic forms. The Minoan culture, in 
fact, had so far not been extinguished, nor to any serious 
extent replaced, or even contaminated, by another in Crete, 
though reception of Egyptian influence still went on, and a 
small proportion of northern types of weapons makes its 
appearance, together with a northern type of house. It has 
been shown quite recently in a very able, and on the whole 
convincing, paper by Dr. Duncan Mackenzie, the learned 
assistant-excavator of Cnossus, that the explanation of such 
cultural continuity in Crete, up to the end of the Bronze 
Age, is to be sought in the probability that the destroyers 
of the Minoan palaces about 1400 B.C. were not northern 
' barbarians', but participants in Aegean civilization pushed 
out from the mainland by a northern invasion. Being 
racially kin to the Cretan Aegeans, these refugees, after 
overthrowing the Minoan dynasty, settled down without dis- 
turbing or modifying the course of Cretan artistic develop- 
ment. It is on considerably later sites that we first find any 
evidence of a new cultural element in Crete. This occurs 
in certain tombs, belonging apparently to the dawn of the 
Iron Age. Here we note that not only iron, but the practice 


of cremation and the use of the fibula, or, rather, of a fashion of 
dress requiring a brooch for attachment, had come in. In 
these tombs, situated towards the east of Crete, there was 
found in conjunction with weapons not of earlier Cretan 
forms, but of continental European types, certain pottery 
already noticed as later than the latest Minoan, by the 
excavators of Palaikastro. In this ware a new geometric 
element of decoration appears alongside earlier Aegean 
designs and forms. These tombs and their pottery, Dr. 
Mackenzie thinks, are to be ascribed to the first ' Hellenic ' 
immigrants, who came in at the opening of the Iron Age and 
were probably Achaeans. The Geometric style becomes 
rather suddenly thereafter universally prevalent, and the 
continental types of weapons cease to be exceptional. This 
further step must perhaps be ascribed to the subsequent 
and final wave of immigration, which we call Dorian. But 
for my present purpose I wish to insist chiefly on this point. 
That even in the full ' Dorian ' Geometric ware of Crete 
Minoan forms and decorative designs play a predominant 
part. They have survived, unmistakable, right through 
the Bronze Age and down into the Iron Age, through the 
successive invasions of the island by mainland Aegean 
peoples, by Achaeans, and by Dorians. In Crete, at any 
rate, the Hellenic period was cradled among Minoan tradi- 
tions ; and even if memories of Aegean culture survived 
nowhere else — an unreasonable supposition — , any one dis- 
cussing hereafter the origins of Hellenism must take account 
of this fact, that those memories persisted with no inconsider- 
able vitality in one great Aegean island within sight of the 
Peloponnese long after the latest date at which the Ionian 
migrants are supposed to have set sail for Asia. 

I turn to Sparta, though with diffidence, since the results 
of the past season, and indeed many of those of earlier 
seasons, have been made known as yet only in summary 
form. You will be aware that the British Athenian School 
has been prosecuting researches for the past three years in 
the precinct of Artemis Orthia, famous as the scene of the 
experimental flogging of Laconian boys. Stratum by 



stratum the diggers have gone downwards, removing in 
their progress the last vestiges of the reproach so long 
levelled against Sparta, that she neglected the Fine Arts. 
These typical Dorians, it now appears, not only had in the 
sixth century b. c. their local school of rather rigid sculpture, 
of which a few examples have long been known, but executed, 
even earlier, as fine carvings in ivory as any of the time, 
and worked in bronze, clay, and hard stone in a manner 
equal to the contemporary best. If indeed it be true, as it 
seems to be from the latest Spartan reports, that the vases, 
which have long been called ' Cyrenaic ', were really of a 
Spartan fabric developed out of an earlier local ware of 
' orientalizing ' type, not unlike the early Corinthian, 
these Dorians were ahead of all Greek potters in the 
seventh century, and pushed their products even into 

So much for what the Dorian could achieve, it appears, 
in the eighth and seventh centuries. But we can now retrace 
his history farther still. The earliest foundations in the 
Orthia precinct are remains of a temple in crude brick with 
wooden framework, whose roof was supported by a single 
axial colonnade. This structure the discoverers refer to 
the ninth century B. c. Since a like primitive type has 
appeared also in Hellenic Asia, at Neandria in the Aeolic 
Troad, there was thus early some community of tradition 
between Europe and Asia in the most rigid and conservative 
of all architectural schemes, that of sacred buildings. To 
the earliest temple is to be related a great Altar of Sacrifice 
near by, whose orientation is the same. There were found 
embedded about its foundations numerous votive objects, 
the most primitive of which must be referred to an equally 
remote age ; and to these must be added the contents of 
coeval strata at one or two other neighbouring spots. We 
have thus, for the first time, a body of documents attesting 
the art of a mainland branch of the Hellenic race in the ninth 
century b.c. They consist in chief of painted potterj', 
ivory or bone fibula-plates, and bronze articles of wear, 
especially fibulae. Let us see what evidence they offer 


(so far as their provisional publication can be used) of 
influences which may have formed Dorian art. 

The pottery of earliest Dorian fabric falls into the 
Geometric class. It is very simple in decoration and finds 
its closest parallel in certain Geometric ware found on the 
opposite Adriatic coast, in mid and southern Italy. Geo- 
metric ornament of so simple a kind offers no good evidence 
of derivation, and similar combinations of lines and curves 
have often, no doubt, originated independently in divers 
areas. Not having seen the actual sherds in question, I 
venture to say no more than that the representations already 
published do not seem to me to preclude such a theory of 
partial derivation from some late Aegean Bauernstil, as 
certainly holds good in the case of the Cretan Geometric. 
Late Aegean sherds were found, it appears, on the site of 
the Amyclaeum, and the Laconian Geometric sherds seem 
to lie immediately over these. That no Aegean sherds or 
other things Aegean were found on the Orthia site itself 
proves no more than that that site was not a sanctuary or 
an inhabited place in the earlier period of Laconia. 

The ivory fibula-plates are more informing. The earliest, 
which have been published, repeat in more than one case 
familiar Aegean motives, treated, however, in a manner 
more Oriental than was used by Aegean artists, and with a 
new heaviness and grossness of style which is neither Aegean 
nor Oriental. This style recalls to me very distinctly that 
of the Bologna situlae, the great chased bronze pails of 
the Villanova period, and also that of some objects among 
the Idaean bronzes of Crete. The inference that I would 
draw — though with all apology for rashly drawing any 
inference at all without having seen the objects in question 
or possessing more information than is given in provisional re- 
ports of the excavation — is this. Two new influences have 
acted upon a remnant of the Aegean culture, which survived 
among the subjected Aegean population of Laconia from 
the period when the Vaphio and Kampos tombs were made. 
The least important was exercised by Phoenician traders 
who, as the Homeric poems and Greek tradition recorded, 



had been visiting the Peloponnesian coast since the lapse 
of the Minoan sea power. This influence drew its inspira- 
tion ultimately from Mesopotamian art, but through the 
medium of the secondary Hittite culture of northern and 
central Syria. The more dynamic influence had come in 
with northern iron-using immigrants, who had previously 
shared in the important Bronze Age culture of the Danubian 
lands. Of this culture more anon. Sufficient to say here 
that its remains show it to have been so widely spread over 
all the Balkan area and across the broad isthmus between 
the Alps and the Black Sea, that it is inconceivable that any 
migrants coming from the north at the opening of the Iron 
Age could have failed to share it, or at least to have been 
influenced by it. It was, beyond question, responsible for 
the northern element in the Villanova culture of north Italy, 
and equally beyond question it was responsible for the fact 
that neither of the two great northern waves, which succes- 
sively surged over the Peloponnese, consisted of barbarians. 
Both the Homeric Achaeans and the historic Dorians of 
Sparta must have brought with them both the spirit and the 
habit of art. But neither had produced in their northern 
homes, so far as we know, anything nearly so fine as these 
earliest Spartan ivories. There ensued a surprisingly rapid 
advance in their powers so soon as they were settled in 
the south, and this we can only ascribe to their education 
by the kindred and refined, though decadent, culture of an 
older aboriginal population. I must not pursue this fasci- 
nating speculation at greater length; but I may just remind 
you that Greek tradition always held the Laconian popula- 
tion to be heterogeneous and in great part composed of 
subjected elements ; and that, according to the recent 
researches of Meister, the true Doric dialect was not spoken 
in great part of Laconia. 

Finally, the fibulae go far to confirm the existence of 
a strong northern element in early Spartan society. The 
great majority show the double coil or 'spectacles' form, 
which is familiar in Danubian deposits of the Bronze Age, 
but not known among purely Aegean remains. Others 


replace the bronze coils by plates of bone cut to a similar 
shape. These occur also on Danubian sites, especially in 
Bosnia : but they have not been proved to have existed in 
Aegean lands till the Geometric sub-Aegean period had set 
in. I found two specimens in the latest stratum of the 
Dictaean Cave in Crete ; and many occurred in the eighth- 
century Foundation Deposit of the Ephesian Artemisium. 

This, then, is my general conclusion. Dorian art in Laconia 
was due to the revival of the artistic instincts of an earlier 
Aegean population by successive bodies of immigrants, 
drawn from the area of that Danubian Bronze Age culture, 
which, though kin, had not advanced nearly so far as the 
Aegean art, nor so seriously exhausted itself. Some further 
stimulus was imparted rather to the Achaeans perhaps 
than to the Dorians, by intercourse with Phoenicians, who 
brought to the coasts imitations of north Syrian art products, 
or those products themselves. The old Aegean population, 
however, probably dwindled, and its artistic influence 
gradually ceased to make itself felt. Hence the remarkable 
Dorian art of the ninth to the sixth centuries failed in the 
fifth, and the Spartan, as the recent explorers tell us, became 
then and thenceforward in reality the artless society which, 
till lately, we supposed it had been from the beginning. 

Now, at last, for the Ionian of Attica. The presumption 
is strong that his earliest history was, more or less, the same 
as the Dorian's. Greek tradition derived him from the 
same ultimate ancestry and the same home ; and Greek 
tradition of Greek origins, be it noted, has been rather 
signally vindicated in these latter days. We may trust it 
so far as to assume that immigrant northerners came down 
to Attica and neighbouring coasts at the opening of the 
historic period, and that they were near kin of the Dorians, 
who had been impelled southwards by more or less the same 
agencies, whatever those were. We may further assume 
that, having come under the same cultural influences of 
central south-eastern Europe, they were by no means 
barbarians when they eventually descended upon the 
Hellenic peninsula, but were peculiarly well equipped to 


understand and assimilate all that remained of the abori- 
ginal high civilization of the Aegean area. 
^ The relations, however, of the two elements which went 
to make the historic population of Attica seem not to have 
been the same as in Laconia. We have it on the authority 
of Thucydides, that the higher class of Athenian society, 
to which he belonged, held itself to be of aboriginal local 
stock ; and from the way in which he states this, one would 
naturally gather that the claim was both one peculiar to 
the Attic Ionians among Hellenes, and also generally con- 
ceded by Hellenic opinion. In Laconia the reverse seems 
to have been the case. The dominant class was immigrant, 
but the subjected classes of Perioeci and Helots probably 
represented older stock. Archaeological evidence goes to 
indicate that there had survived in the Attic area an 
unusually late and vigorous bloom of Aegean culture, and 
one which bears traces of having been affected to an unusual 
degree by some Eastern influence. I have only to remind 
those, who have studied ' Mycenaean ' remains, of the Spata 
tombs with their most singular ivories which suggest some 
art of west Asia, and invite comparison even with Layard's 
ivories from Nimrud. The moulded glass and pottery from 
these tombs seem to date them even later than the so-called 
* Re-occupation Period ' of Cnossus, and probably they fall 
towards the very end of the Bronze Age. At the same time 
let me recall to you that ' Treasure from One of the Greek 
islands ' in the British Museum, found as a matter of fact 
in Aegina. Here again, in the Ionic area, we have very 
fine work of an even later sub-Aegean style, for which 
Mr. Evans, when he published this Treasure some years ago, 
suggested the ninth or eighth century. Like the earlier 
Late Aegean objects of Attica, these too offer suggestions 
of Eastern influence, e. g. of Egyptian motives recast, as 
Mr. Evans said, in a more Oriental mould, and also marked 
traces of affinity to art of the later Danubian Bronze Age. 

In connexion with early Hellenic Attica, however, one 
must not forget to take into account the evidence of a com- 
paratively rich local Geometric art, following on the decay 


of the later Aegean culture. There can be little question 
that the so-called ' Dipylon ' art was the characteristic 
early style of the blended population of this corner of Greece, 
and that it owed more to northern influence than to survival 
of Aegean artistic tradition, though the latter went for some- 
thing in its forms and decoration. The natural inference 
to be drawn from this fact is, that in Attica the northern 
element was even more numerous than in Laconia. But if 
due weight be given to the tradition of aristocratic auto- 
chthony in Athens, we must suppose that here the older 
population was not so much subjected, as in great part 
displaced. Perhaps, at first, by far the more numerous, it 
tried to subsist on the soil together with the less numerous 
but stronger immigrants. But the lean land of Attica 
could not long support such increase, and the weaker 
elements went presently to the wall, or rather took 
to the sea. So we might explain that ' overcrowding of 
Athens ' which, Greek tradition states, resulted in the 
Ionian Migration : and so we should arrive at the logical 
inference that the main constituent of the ' Ionian ' popu- 
lation, which sailed eastward, was of Aegean race, and 
carried Aegean traditions to Asia. 

Some element of the northern new-comers, however, there 
must have been in that Migration ; or at least, some great 
change must have already been worked by them on the elder 
population ere it migrated. For without allowing for new 
blood, you will account even less satisfactorily for what these 
Ionians would achieve in Asia than you will account for 
early Dorian art in Laconia if you deny an Aegean sub- 
stratum there, and ascribe everything to northern immi- 
grants, who have left no trace in the north of such high 
artistic capacity as the earliest Dorian products of Laconia 
show. It is doubtless very true that a great deal which was 
older, and if you will, ' pre-Hellenic,' coming to the surface 
again in Hellas after the tumult of the great Migrations, 
eventually determined, in no inconsiderable measure, not 
only the development of Hellenic art, but the religious and 
political ideas of Hellenic social life. But it must never be 


lost sight of that Aegean civilization was demonstrably in 
decay when the iron-using races first impinged upon its area ; 
and that as a distinct culture, it ran to seed thereafter and 
died down. We know that its growth had covered a very 
long time ; but long or short, it was over ; and if the stock 
was to sprout anew it could only be after re-fertilization. 

In certain cases the renascence of a civilization might 
perhaps result from nothing more than fresh external contact 
with aliens. We seem to-day to be watching a case in point 
in Japan. If one were prepared at once to ignore Greek 
genealogical tradition, and to credit the Phoenician Semites 
with a far more independent, living and dynamic civilization 
than there is historic warrant for, one might maintain that 
Ionian art was begotten by them on the Aegean culture of 
old Attica. For it is certain that a Semitic expansion did 
take place in this Dark Age, thanks to the decline of mari- 
time Aegean power, and that the Phoenician was the one 
comparatively fresh influence of the East which we can 
follow to the coast of mainland Hellas at this time. Not 
only, however, are the objections to which I have just 
alluded, namely, those raised by Greek tradition and the 
known character of Phoenician civilization, very strong, but 
even Japan does not warrant us in supposing that by mere 
contact with alien culture a civilized stock, which had had 
so long and so full a growth as the Aegean, could be so re- 
fertilized as to produce a new growth of anything like such 
freshness and vigour as was the Ionian. What alone seems 
adequate to explain the facts of the case is an infusion of 
new blood by a vigorous stock newly come from a more 
invigorating clime, but a stock long civilized by a culture 
near enough akin to that of the old stock for there to be 
ready sympathy between the two. Otherwise there must 
in all likelihood have ensued too long and severe a period 
of disintegration for the older and weaker stock to retain 
any vigour at all, and for a fresh growth of the higher arts 
to have ensued near so rapidly as did the Hellenic bloom 
in Ionia. 

No sane historian will, I think, now be found to throw 


overboard Greek tradition in the matter of the origin of 
Ionian civilization. We are bound to believe that the latter 
was due in some measure, indeed in great measure, to 
colonists from the West, who came over at more or less one 
period, not far from the opening of the first millennium 
B.C. More than that Greek tradition does not say. If 
its statements are carefully compared it will be seen that it 
assigns also some share of the credit to peoples previously 
settled in Asia and to non-Hellenic civilizations. But more 
of this in a later lecture. For my present point it is enough 
that some Ionians are to be accepted as having been in 
eastern Hellas before there was an Ionia, and that these, 
when they passed over to Asia, must have carried a very much 
more definite and developed equipment of civilization than a 
mere 'innate instinct for humanism'. It seems indeed most 
probable that they were themselves a racial blend, whereof 
one element, the most vigorous but much the less numerous, 
was comparatively freshly derived from south-east central 
Europe, where it had participated in a very considerable 
Bronze Age culture; while the other, the numerical majority, 
was by descent and inheritance representative of one of the 
most advanced antecedent societies of the world, one which, 
long in close touch with the ' living East \ had assimilated 
into its own system no small part of the East's social progress. 
What the Ionian took to Ionia was a fusion of the Danubian 
with the Aegean culture. This would develop a fresh growth 
on a new soil, which lay more open to vital influences of the 
East than any on which either culture had flourished there- 
tofore. There is no ' miracle ' about Ionian civilization ; 
but there is a good deal yet to explain. 



When summarizing knowledge about the origins of 
Ionian civilization up to 1900 in my Introduction, I said 
that the most serious difficulty in determining its component 
elements arose from lack of archaeological evidence about 
Ionia before the Ionians. That difficulty, unfortunately, 
remains to this day little lessened. If the ruined tumulus 
near old Aeolic Smyrna, known as the Grave of Tantalus, 
and certain rude and half-buried traces of primitive inhabita- 
tion and human handiwork near it and on the mountain 
behind, had then to bear obscure and solitary witness to 
the pre- or proto-Ionians in Ionia itself, their witness is 
not more illuminating now. For neither have they been 
re-examined, nor has anything bearing on them come to 
light elsewhere. Until scientific excavation is made and 
potsherds and other small objects are found, either in that 
tumulus itself or in the settlement near it, it must remain 
quite doubtful to what people or date it is to be assigned. 
It may have been made by such a proto-Ionian race as the 
ThraccflPhrygians or the Leleges, or by the hands, whether 
Cappadocian or Lydian or what not, which carved the 
sculptures on the neighbouring rocks of the Kara Bel by 
Nymphi ; or it may not be pre-Ionian at all. In any case 
the rock sculptures of Nymphi and Sipylus remain our most 
significant material witnesses to a pre-Ionian civilization, 
whether of native or foreign origin, in the central coast- 
land of western Asia Minor. I shall speak again of them 

The literary testimony of Greek tradition and belief on 
this matter is more suggestive than explicit. In Homer 
no cities on the west mainland coast are mentioned as 
Greek, but Miletus is alluded to as a town of the ' barbarous- 

Ill IONIA 43 

speaking Carians \ Several of the southern islands, however, 
join the Achaean forces ; and in Rhodes in particular, Lindus, 
Ialysus, and Camirus appear as presumably Greek cities. 
One never likes to rely on Homeric silence. There is a good 
deal of reason to doubt whether the authors of the Homeric 
lays knew much about any part of Asia Minor except the 
extreme north-west corner. I say this with full con- 
sciousness that those lays have often been held of Ionian 
origin. But this theory runs contrary to the mass of the 
internal evidence. The diction of the lays, the geographical 
equipment of their authors, the social setting and the tra- 
ditional relations of the leading characters, all point to a 
Western origin. What the epic authors knew of Asia they 
learned in all probability, at second-hand, from those who 
made such raids on its coast as that with which the Iliad 
itself is concerned. Something more may have been 
derived from errant bodies of Achaeans like those Aquay- 
wasa, who joined other ' Peoples of the Sea ' in attacking 
Egypt, about 1180 B.C. But it did not amount to much. 
The epic authors had, however, heard positively of Miletus 
at any rate as an existent city, a city of the Carians, who 
spoke a tongue unknown to the Achaeans, and were expert 
in such a delicate art as the tinting of ivory. 

This being so, it is interesting to turn to the site of 
Miletus itself, and ask how far the excavations, prosecuted 
there since 1900 by Dr. Theodor Wiegand, for tfie Berlin 
Academy of Sciences, have cast any light on a Carian origin 
of the city. This exploration has been directed chiefly, 
like so many other German excavations in Asia Minor, to 
architectural ends and, therefore, on a great part of the 
site has been limited to the clearing of ruins of the more 
important public buildings of the Imperial Age. But at 
a few points the explorer has been able to penetrate lower 
and to open out remains of earlier times, notably in and 
about a small shrine of Athena whose foundation goes back 
to the seventh century B.C. at least, and probably earlier. 
Hereabout, as I understand (for there has been as yet no 
full publication of the early remains), he unearthed certain 


traces of prehistoric structures and a small number of 
fragments of Aegean vases lying on the virgin soil. I have 
never seen them, but Mr. Cecil Smith, who has done so, 
confirms their Aegean character. I gather that they 
belong to a very late epoch — spatmykenisch, Dr. Wiegand 
calls them. Probably they are not earlier than the Ialysus 
vases from Rhodes, or those from Assarlik in Caria, which, 
being associated with iron weapons, represent the very 
end of the Aegean period. So far as they go, however, 
these sherds attest the existence of a settlement on the site 
of Miletus prior to the accepted date of Ionian colonization. 

This is very slight material evidence, and one had hoped 
for much more. But so far as it goes, it distinctly supports 
the inference drawn from Homer that there was a civilized 
Miletus before the Ionians appeared — an inference which 
is in accord, moreover, with the indication given by a story 
of Herodotus concerning the Carian wives of the first Greek 
settlers. There are also other allusions to pre-Ionian Carians 
in what was to become Ionian territory — for example, 
those who, according to Pausanias, were found by Androclus 
and his band of colonists, living in sanctuary with Leleges 
and Lydians about the Ephesian hieron. We need not 
attempt here to answer the question, who were these 
Carians ? Ramsay and others have shown that the historic 
people of that name was compounded of at least two elements, 
one of which was Indo-European ; and there was a per- 
sistent Greek tradition which connected Carians with early 
Crete and the pre-Hellenic period in the Cyclades. Suffi- 
cient for our present purpose that they were present as, 
apparently, a civilized people on the west-central Anatolian 
coast ere the first Ionian migrants arrived. If the evidence 
of excavation at Miletus, Assarlik and Ialysus is to go for 
anything, they had been reached by, or had perhaps im- 
ported, the Aegean culture of the very latest Bronze Age. 

If we could be more sure of the high antiquity of Biblical 
references to Javan, we should have to suppose that the 
Ionian name was in Asia before the Ionian Migration. If 
so, earlier migrants must have brought it across the Straits. 

Ill IONIA 45 

But there is no necessity so to antedate it. The first 
Biblical reference which we can use with any confidence 
is that in Ezekiel concerning the supplying of iron to Syria 
by Javan ; and this applies to as late a period as the 
seventh century. The supposed Egyptian reference to 
Ionians in the Hittite Confederacy of the fourteenth century 
b. a, based on Champollion's reading of the poem of Pentaur, 
has long been discredited. 

On the whole, then, scanty Greek tradition and scantier 
monumental evidence from Ionia itself, taken together, 
tend to indicate pre-Ionian inhabitation of the west- 
central Anatolian coast by heterogeneous, weak and 
scattered, but not uncivilized populations. These seem 
to have been loosely dominated at the earliest epoch, of 
which we have any knowledge, by the inland Syro-Cappa- 
docian power, and subsequently perhaps, in some measure, 
by another inland power, which rose out of the decay of the 
first, namely, the Phrygian. To the latter the Tantalid 
legends of Aeolic Smyrna seem to attach : to the former, 
the rock monuments of Sipylus and Nymphi. 

One or both of these inland powers, however, there is some 
reason to think, was strong enough on the west coast, to 
keep it from having any political connexion with the Aegean 
centres of civilization, and perhaps from being affected by 
Aegean culture till almost the end of the Aegean Age. 
When, on behalf of the British Museum, I re-explored, in 
1904-5, the site of the great shrine of Artemis at Ephesus, 
I ascertained an important negative fact. In the large 
area occupied by the platforms of the successive temples, 
not less than five in number, which were raised on this site, 
I penetrated to the virgin sand over almost all the central 
space upon which the three earliest (and smallest) of those 
temples stood, and I found a very rich deposit of votive 
objects and various fragments, including a good deal of 
pottery, in the lowest stratum of all. But I got not one 
sherd of Aegean ware, nor any article of true Aegean fabric, 
nor indeed anything of the subsequent so-called Geometric 
style, except two minute fragments of a vase. Yet there 


is no possible doubt that I reached the bottom of human 
remains on the site. My lowest stratum was bedded evenly 
upon clean saturated sand, evidently the surface of a fluvial 
marsh, whose upper level lay not two metres above that of 
the distant sea, and considerably below the present bed of 
the Cayster river at its nearest point. Into this sand, which 
lay more than a metre below the level of saturation 
in early summer, and could only be examined by con- 
tinually exhausting the infiltration with a steam-pump, 
five-foot probes could be driven up to their heads at all 
points without encountering the least resistance. Beyond 
question this is the original marshy ground on which, as 
Pliny tells us, the earliest Artemisium was founded in the hope 
that it would enjoy comparative immunity from the effects 
of earthquake. 

It is always difficult to prove, and dangerous to press, 
negative evidence in archaeology. An earlier settlement 
than the earliest which I found, may very well have existed 
on another part of the large space afterwards regarded 
as the hieron of Artemis. For nothing but the rectangle, 
some one hundred metres by sixty, occupied by the great 
temple itself, has been examined to the bottom or anywhere 
near it. Or tjie earlier hieron, around which the first Ionian 
colonists found a mixed native population living Uirias 
(vena, may not have lain anywhere near the later Artemisium, 
but have been that Ortygian shrine of Leto in the hills to 
the south, which later tradition seems to have regarded as 
the mother church. If Pliny's story of the earliest Ionian 
foundation and the reasons of its location is true, it implies 
that a fresh site was selected, not likely to have been chosen 
by earlier builders. 

Nevertheless this negative result of my deep excavation 
of the Artemisium is not without significance. It tallies with 
the almost equally negative result, as regards earlier Aegean 
things, which has thus far followed on all exploration what- 
ever in Hellenic Asia, both mainland and isles, except only 
at Hissarlik. For all the rest of the coast, as has been 
already said, we have nothing at all that is Aegean to 

Ill IONIA 47 

record, except vases or sherds of the very latest Age of 
Bronze or earliest of Iron, found at three points only on 
the mainland, viz. Pergamum, Miletus, and Assarlik, and at 
one point in Rhodes. The last named island has been 
scoured of late by successive exploring parties, British and 
Danish, in search of things Aegean, but nothing earlier than, 
or even as early as, the Ialysus vases can be discovered 
on its surface. True, there has been no further Rhodian 
excavation, except one in historic strata at Lindus. But 
nowhere else, where Aegean things have eventually been 
unearthed in any abundance, as e.g. in Cyprus, Crete, or 
the Argolid, have explorers, consciously searching for 
Aegean remains, drawn the surface so blank. It certainly 
looks as if Rhodes had not received its western settlers 
long before the date of the Iliad. The other great islands 
near the Ionian coast, Samos, Chios, and Mitylene, have 
yet to produce a single well-attested Aegean object. 

There is, therefore, perliaps, just enough reason to hold 
as a working hypothesis that, except for their north-western 
corner, the Asiatic coasts of the Aegean lay, until very late, 
outside the culture-area associated with the name of that 
sea. But if 'tis true, 'tis strange ! Why did the Cretan 
and other Aegean sea-rovers, whether pirates or merchants 
or both, fail to settle on these particular coasts and isles ? 
They had pushed their wares into Hissarlik, and had filled 
all the opposite shores of Europe with a culture much higher 
and more vigorous than any which has left a contemporary 
trace in Anatolia. I cun conceive but one reason which will 
explain such a fact, if fact it be ; and that is this. There 
must have been some strong continental Power dominating 
all the west-central coast of Asia Minor from an inland capital. 
It must have been a non-maritime Power, careless about 
developing its coast lands, but careful to keep others away 
from them. In fact some Asiatic race was playing thus 
early the same part, and was producing the same result in 
Anatolia that, in the historic age, first the Mermnad kings 
of Lydia, and later, during two epochs, the Achaemenid kings 
of Persia, played and produced. But with this difference. 


These historic Powers came to the front after a period 
of disintegration, during which numerous alien cities had 
come into being on the western coast. They had thus 
to occupy and dominate an existent coastal civilization 
already in full growth. But that prehistoric dominant Power 
came before this period, and found at most but a few weak 
cities on the coasts to take or leave. It was not studious 
to create more. Remember that, throughout history, the 
rich littoral districts of Asia Minor have always fallen to 
continental Powers of Asia, unless there were a very strong 
maritime Power of Europe which desired them. They have 
never stood long independent in their own strength, or been 
able to withstand Asia, while the maritime peoples of south- 
eastern Europe were weak. Geographical situation and 
climatic conditions are constantly detrimental to their 
Europeanism. Their territories lie, rich and enervated, at 
the foot of easy roads, leading down from another and a 
more virile world. 

It need not, however, be supposed that, if such an inland 
power existed and cried hands off to would-be settlers 
and raiders, it had no relations at all with the sea-rovers 
of the Aegean. Some measure of commercial intercourse 
there may well, and indeed there must, have been, quite 
sufficient to account for the passing of mutual influence 
from the sea to the continent, and the continent to the 
sea. What this Power may have been and where centred. 
I will inquire in another discourse, when I come to consider 
what lay to the east of Ionia. I pause here only to say that 
my supposition involves, of course, a corollary. The inland 
Power in question must have grown weaker late in the 
Aegean period, and have so far been broken up before 
1000 B. c, that the western coasts, formerly closed, became 
open to hardy adventurers. If later on I can show that 
there was actually a strong inland Power in Asia Minor 
which did suffer conspicuous decline or disintegration at 
about that epoch, I shall have established a fair prima 
facie case. 

If our present documents for Ionia before the Ionians 

Ill IONIA 49 

are but little better than those available ten years ago, 
are we better off for documents illustrating the beginnings 
of the subsequent period, traditionally associated with 
a migration from the west ? The earliest remains on 
the Artemisium site at Ephesus comprise, as I have just 
said, nothing that can be referred to local pre-Ionian 
civilization. But they do offer a good deal of inferential 
evidence upon the course of the subsequent archaic Ionian 
development. Indeed it is in considering them, that 
archaeology has obtained the first clear view of the historic 
Ionian civilization in the making. Some archaic Ionian 
evidence has been obtained also at Miletus. But, so far 
as I have been able to learn, the Milesian documents for 
this period are much less numerous and significant than the 
Ephesian. In any case, they cannot safely be used till they 
are finally published by their discoverer. I shall devote 
myself, therefore, to the Ephesian, on which I can speak 
at first hand. I have stated the circumstances under which 
I found these documents, and have given a detailed catalogue 
in a volume lately issued by the Trustees of the British 
Museum. I need recapitulate the main facts but very 
briefly. When I went to Ephesus in 1904, I was com- 
missioned, among other things, to probe beneath the temple 
platform constructed in the sixth century b. a, and exposed 
in 1870 by J. T. Wood, who regarded it to the end of his 
life as the earliest structure on the site. It seemed, however, 
unlikely that a sanctuary so greatly honoured by all the 
Asiatic Hellenes had its origin thus late in their history. 
After clearing that platform once again and more thoroughly, 
and piercing it in vain at several points of its outer periphery, 
I began to examine a rectangular marble foundation in its 
axial centre, the top of whose highest course, lying a little 
lower than. the cella pavement, had been revealed by Wood. 
The latter believed it to be the sub-structure of an internal 
Great Altar, but did not explore it farther. On beginning, 
however, deeper clearance around and inside it, I found 
not only that there was but one course of marble and that 
below this began faced masonry of other stone, unlike that 


used in the sixth-century temple, but also that a part of the 
rectangle was filled in solid with evenly-laid slabs of limestone 
compacted with mud mortar. On lifting the upper slabs 
I came upon numerous pieces of jewellery in gold and 
electrum, and other personal ornaments and articles of 
wear in ivory and other materials. These were for the 
most part so perfect in every detail, that it is incredible 
that they could have been puddled up unseen in mud 
mortar and dumped as rubbish where they were ultimately 
found. The only possible alternative is to suppose that 
they were carefully laid between the slabs for some hieratic 
purpose, for example, as a foundation deposit, intended, 
according to the original motive of all such deposits, for the 
fruition of the deity of the shrine. In all likelihood the 
structure containing this deposit was not an altar at all, 
but the Basis of the central cult-statue of the Ephesian 
Goddess. If the foundations at central points of other 
Greek temples were laid open now (e. g. in the Parthenon, 
and the Delphic and Olympian shrines), I believe it would 
be found that it was the Hellenic practice to hide foundation 
deposits under the central statue. 

To make what might be a long story short, I will only add 
that the progress of the clearance, carried on with great 
difficulty in water and slime with the aid of pumps, ultimately 
showed that this central Basis had been twice enlarged 
by additions on all sides except the. western. The original 
and smallest rectangle, based on a slab foundation, bedded 
about two metres below the sixth-century pavement in clean 
marsh-sand, was built in fine early masonry of green schist, 
faced on the outer sides only. On the inner faces the 
blocks were left rough and bonded into the slab-filling. 
This filling, without which the structure was not compact 
or stable, continued, as it was removed layer by layer, to 
produce jewellery and other small objects, identical in style 
throughout. But it was productive only within the area of 
the smallest and earliest rectangle. The filling of the later 
enlargements on three sides contained practically nothing 
except a possibly sacrificial deposit of bones and charcoal 

Ill IONIA 51 

in one angle. The total number of objects in precious 
metals, ivory, bone, paste, crystal and other materials, 
found in the smaller rectangle, was a little above one thou- 
sand ; and, with the exception of twenty-eight electrum 
coins, these objects were trinkets or other articles of personal 
wear or cult use. In the latter category must be reckoned 
a number of artificial astragali, made in ivory and variously 
decorated. These were probably used for divination or 
dedicated as tokens after successful appeal had been made 
to the oracle with natural knucklebones, of which some also 
were found in the same deposit. 

The inevitable inferences from these facts, as they present 
themselves to me, are these. The smallest rectangle is the 
earliest, and as early as any structure on the site. Its 
slab-filling was coeval with it, and the objects in that filling 
were placed there carefully as the structure was being built. 
They too, therefore, are as early as anything on the site. 
Subsequent to this foundation, but before the middle of the 
sixth century, two successive restorations of the Basis have 
to be allowed for. The smallest rectangle must, therefore, 
antedate the epoch of Croesus by a considerable space of time. 

Continuing my exploration of the lowest strata round 
about this Basis, I found, corresponding to its three periods, 
structural remains of three primitive temples. All were 
small and contained within the space occupied later by no 
more than the cella of the sixth century ; and all had the 
Basis for their central point. The pavement level of each 
successive temple was raised above the last ; but the third 
and highest primitive pavement lay rather less than one 
metre below that of the great temple of the sixth century. 
The third primitive structure was the largest and the only 
one whose ground plan was sufficiently preserved for its 
form to be conjectured. It seems to have been a temple 
in antis of the usual Hellenic proportions, facing west, without 
peristyle, and built of fine limestone, not marble. Whether 
it had a single axial row of columns, like the early Ionic 
shrine at Neandria, or the first temple of Artemis Orthia at 
Sparta, no traces remained to show ; but probably it had. 

d 2 


In the area occupied by these three primitive temples, but 
in the bottom stratum of deposit, which alone had escaped 
disturbance at the hands of those who laid the foundations 
of the great sixth-century platform, I found some two thou- 
sand more small votive objects and fragments. The great 
majority of these can be referred certainly to the same 
period as the Basis Treasure, in virtue either of intrinsic 
similarities, or of the relation in which they lay to primitive 
foundations. They included some sixty more electrum 
coins and several pseudo-Egyptian scarabs, besides a number 
of fine ivories, and a good deal of bronze, a metal almost 
completely absent from the Basis Treasure. As a whole, 
however, the articles found outside the Basis were in much 
smaller proportion personal trinkets, and were less well 

This collection of about three thousand objects and the 
earliest Artemisium, to which they seem almost without 
exception to have belonged, form the body of evidence on 
which I propose to draw. I date the objects about the 
end of the eighth century B. c, partly in consideration of the 
interval reasonably to be allowed for the succession of three 
temples, one over another, before the middle of the sixth 
century ; but more by comparison of other finds made else- 
where, which offer analogies of fabric and style. Especially 
to be compared are those gold objects from Camirus 
in Rhodes and the Polledrara tomb at Vulci in Tuscany, 
which are dated, by their association with scarabs of Psam- 
metichus I, with probability to the latter half of the seventh 
century, but seem products of a slightly more advanced art, 
The Treasure in the Ephesian Basis I hold to have been put 
there intentionally at the moment of the original foundation, 
not much later or earlier than 700 b. c. The objects found 
outside are probably remains of votive and other possessions 
of the earliest temple, dedicated during its apparently short 
life, and, for the most part, broken and trampled at some 
cataclysmic moment into the slime of what has evidently 
been always a very wet site. This moment occurred very 
possibly during that Cimmerian raid on Ephesus which 

Ill IONIA 53 

Herodotus and others record as having happened in the 
reign of Ardys II of Lydia. 

Here, then, is a body of documents speaking to Ionian 
civilization, as it was some two centuries after the tradi- 
tional landing of the western colonists. Of course, all the 
documents need not speak to that moment only. Some 
may well be of an earlier date, heirlooms from previous 
generations, given up at last to the goddess when the site 
in the plain, to be peculiarly associated with her thence- 
forward, was first chosen for her shrine. Trinkets of all 
kinds, especially those in metal, are apt to be long pre- 
served in use. Some of those found in the Artemisium — 
the bronze fibulae for example — show various stages of 
development, from simple bows on which beads of amber or 
composition were strung, to heavy bows on which solid mould- 
ings imitate those adventitious embellishments. Among 
objects of another class, also, erect female statuettes, of which 
probably several represented the goddess (but perhaps, 
as Mr. Cecil Smith prefers, her votaries), there is evidence of 
development. One can trace progress from very rudely 
modelled figures, terminating below in columnar form with- 
out indication of feet or indeed of any human shapeliness, 
to the exquisitely carved but still archaic and faulty form, 
represented on the cover of the British Museum book. The 
possibility of the variations being due to difference of 
contemporaneous fashion or difference of individual crafts- 
men's skill should not, of course, be excluded. But these 
explanations of variation are the less probable in a matter 
of early handiwork. 

In any case the elaborate design and execution of most 
of the Ephesian documents, notably the trinkets and jewels 
in electrum, imply a long previous evolution of skilled craft. 
How long had it been proceeding in Ionia itself ? Can it, 
in any case, be supposed to have begun there, or are the 
ancestors of the Ephesian objects to be looked for else- 
where ? These questions cannot, perhaps, be satisfactorily 
answered yet. But there are certain considerations which 
may help towards an ultimate answer. 


When I came to catalogue and compare the Ephesian 
documents, I found myself recurring again and again to 
the Enkomi Treasure, which was discovered in graves near 
Salamis in Cyprus, and is now almost all lodged in the British 
Museum. I had, thus far, followed certain very competent 
critics of Dr. A. S. Murray's publication of that Treasure, in 
holding it to be some eight centuries earlier than the earliest 
date to which the Ephesian objects could possibly be 
assigned. Those critics had referred it to the period of the 
Mycenae shaft-graves. On re-examining it, however, in 
the light of evidence which was not available when those 
criticisms were written, since it has been collected largely 
by the subsequent labours of the chief critic himself, Mr. 
A. J. Evans, I found myself dating it a good deal later. There 
may be some confusion of earlier and later burials, or certain 
of the trinkets may have survived, as trinkets will, from 
an earlier Aegean period, the second Late Minoan. But 
most of the objects which are not likely to have been heir- 
looms, such as the pottery and some bronzes, seem clearly 
to be as late as, or later than, the Reoccupation Period at 
Cnossus. Indeed, they are fully as late as the Ialysus objects 
from Rhodes. I am now prepared to subscribe to the 
epithet ' sub- Aegean ', which more than one authority has 
applied to the Enkomi Treasure. If the mass of it is to 
be referred, then, to the very end of the Bronze Age, the 
interval of time which divides it from the Ephesian Treasure 
is not so very great. 

The analogies between the two Treasures are many and 
striking. One notes them in fabric, as in the fashioning 
of hollow figurines in two plates, front and back ; in form, 
as in the spiral shape of ear-drops, the high arch of ear- 
rings, and in the types of certain fibulae, pendants and beads ; 
in design, as in the bead-clusters and the use of almost 
identical tiny animals, human heads, and insects as pendent 
attachments to necklaces and ear-rings ; in pattern, as in 
the use of the bow-coil in various combinations, and in the 
frequent dog-tooth disposition of soldered granular decora- 
tion. A significant parallel in artistic convention is seen in 

Ill IONIA 55 

sphinxes which have a spiral frontal lock of hair. This latter 
feature, like the bow-coil, may be of Mesopotamian origin. 
But, since it appears also on sphinxes found both among 
the Spata ivories, and in a tomb at Cnossus, which is appar- 
ently of the third Late Minoan period, it had evidently 
been domiciled so long in the Aegean area, that one cannot 
reasonably suppose that the Ephesian goldsmiths derived it 
independently from the East. In fact, a good many of the 
Oriental traits, which we shall notice presently in the 
Ephesian work, are anticipated by the Enkomi Treasure. 
I shall return to the latter hereafter when discussing so- 
called Cypro-Phoenician art. Enough to say now that 
the bulk of the Enkomi objects are Cypriote and not 
Phoenician, and that their inspiration is due obviously to 
Aegean art. The Ephesian objects, on the other hand, are 
certainly not Cypriote. There is ample presumption from 
the presence of goldsmiths' refuse in the temple itself, and 
from the frequent occurrence of certain peculiar forms 
and decorative motives, for example, the bee, that this 
Primitive Treasure was, in the main, made at Ephesus 
itself. But equally certainly its constituents, with few 
exceptions, seem to me to be related essentially to the same 
system as the Cypriote, i.e. to the sub-Aegean culture, 
even if their relation be more remote. 

Naturally, however, if that be the case, it is not among 
the Cypriote Aegean things only that one ought to note 
Ephesian analogies. How about Hissarlik, the one impor- 
tant Aegean site yet explored in Asia Minor ? Any one 
who takes the trouble to read through my catalogue of the 
Ephesian Treasure will find almost as many comparisons 
noted with Hissarlik as with Enkomi. I do not press 
them, however, to the same extent, because the Hissarlik 
documents in question were almost wholly found by Schlie- 
mann's workmen in those strata above the ' Burnt City ', 
which were notoriously ill-observed and often confused 
by the observers, before Dorpfeld came to the rescue of 
the site. The many forms and designs, parallel to, and 
sometimes identical with, the Ephesian, are to be ascribed 


in some cases possibly to the sixth city, and in more to the 
seventh and eighth. In many cases they may be evidence 
of a culture rather contemporaneous with, than prior to, 
the Ionic Ephesian. But at Hissarlik Aegean traditions 
are more than likely to have inspired every stage of archaic 

With the products of the western Aegean societies such 
close parallelism is not to be looked for. These are in 
very great proportion of much earlier date, or, if of any- 
thing like the same period, represent an art which was 
developed (according to my hypothesis of Ionian origins) 
without so much exposure to alien influences as the Ionian 
and the Cypriote. But, nevertheless, the Ephesian objects 
present many points of analogy with the later mainland 
Aegean remains at Mycenae, Spata and other sites. 
One notes at Ephesus the continued vogue of several 
'Mycenean' fashions, e.g. of circular plaques of precious 
metal with engraved or stamped patterns, often of distinctly 
sub- Aegean character, which were sewn on to textiles to 
form the enrichment of diadems or robes ; of clear white 
rock-crystal, esteemed apparently one of the most precious 
substances in the Aegean period ; of the labrys or double 
war-axe as a decorative motive ; of the heraldic opposition 
of animals in decorative cult-schemes ; of the use of insects 
in precious metal for pendants ; of clusters of soldered 
beads ; and finally of polychromy in ceramic decoration. 
This Middle Minoan fashion emerged again conspicuously 
in later Ionian pottery, as discoveries at Eleusis, Rhodes, 
and especially Naukratis, sufficiently prove. 

If we look, on the other hand, for traces of the other 
original ingredient in the equipment of the Ionian colonists, 
the culture of mid-Europe, we find them indeed clear and 
distinct, but much less frequent. We find them, for 
example, in the fibulae, as indeed we should expect to do 
if the * safety-pin ' fibula had come to Greece from the 
north. It is not by their form so much that the Ephesian 
fibulae remind us of the mid-European area. The majority 
of the Ionian specimens are of that simplified type, called 

Ill IONIA 57 

by Furtwangler kleinasiatisch, which appears, from its 
comparative rarity in deposits on the west of the Aegean, 
to have been developed on the eastern shore, and to have 
made its way into inland fashion. But it is by their adven- 
titious ornament, which consisted mainly of beads threaded 
on the bow. These beads (sometimes very shapeless) were 
generally of amber, and apparently of Baltic amber. Like 
the fibula itself, I take this fashion of bead ornamentation 
to be of mid-European origin. It has left traces of itself 
on most archaic Greek and Graeco-Etruscan sites. A 
peculiar parti-coloured and three-cornered bead in compost, 
with boil-like protuberances, which has been found in 
quantities both at Ephesus and in archaic Greek strata 
elsewhere, often took the place of amber on the fibula bow. 
Beads of similar character and colouring were found in 
early Bronze Age tombs at Jezerine in Bosnia. Let me 
call attention also to another fibula ornament, found at 
Ephesus many times over, the double ivory plate of ' spec- 
tacles ' form. These are a very common Bosnian addition 
to the fibula, but have been but rarely found elsewhere, 
although double coils of metal, making similar ' spectacles', 
have occurred often enough in archaic Greek strata. A 
curious metal bead, cylindrical, swelling in the centre, 
variously ornamented with moulded rings, and pierced 
longitudinally, which appeared in both precious metal and 
bronze at Ephesus, takes us back to the Hallstatt graves. 

It is remarkable, however, and I think very significant, 
that, from a large class of common toilet articles found at 
Ephesus, one mid-European form, preponderant on archaic 
Greek sites of the west, is wholly absent, namely, the pin 
with flat disk or spool for its head and spool-like enlarge- 
ments and mouldings on the upper part of the shaft. This 
adds one to the many pieces of evidence which tend to 
show that in Ionian civilization the mid-European element 
was less strong, and the Aegean element more strong, than 
in either the Dorian or the Ionian culture of the west. 
But that these two are the elements out of which, in what- 
ever proportion, Ionian art was originally compounded, the 


whole mass of the Ephesian evidence, in my opinion, goes 
strongly to prove. 

I will leave to my final lecture the attempt to suggest 
at what period or periods, and in what manner, these two 
main elements came to Asia Minor in the Ionian Migration. 
But a caveat may be entered here against any assumption 
that either or both elements were entirely absent from 
Asia before that Migration. There is reason to believe 
both that some population, racially kin to that which 
developed the Aegean culture, was present on the Anatolian 
coasts from early times, and also that there had been very 
early passage of influences and perhaps of peoples, from 
Balkanic Europe to Asia Minor. Not only has the earliest 
sub-neolithic stratum at Hissarlik produced pottery and 
weapons closely resembling those of neolithic Danubian 
graves, but at two other places, where sub-neolithic settle- 
ments have been explored in north-west Asia Minor, 
Danubian analogies are even more certainly to be remarked. 
These places are Boz Eyuk in central Phrygia, and Yortan 
in Mysia. The vases of the latter site, where is a cemetery 
of the earliest Bronze Age, show close analogies with 
Cypriote forms and suggest that the earliest migrants 
from Europe spread sporadically far down through the 
peninsula to the Levant. That their intermediate stations 
between north Phrygia and Cyprus are not known, does 
not prove that such did not exist ; for no attempt has 
been made to explore sub-neolithic sites in any other part 
of the peninsula. 

There remains, however, a new element to be considered 
in the evolution of Ionian civilization. In the stage at 
least at which the Ephesian documents reveal it, it had 
experienced also divers influences neither mid-European nor 
Aegean. It is comparatively easy to point out the effect 
of these. The difficulties thicken, when we try to determine 
whence and by what road they came, and especially whether 
any of them represent a culture which was in Ionia before 
the Ionians. 

A most important class of Ephesian documents betrays 

Ill IONIA 59 

especial influence of the East, namely, the ivory statuettes 
of human and animal forms. Ivory, as a material, always 
suggests the East, but in this connexion it must be remem- 
bered that during a long previous period it had been known 
and used in the Aegean area. Witness the statuettes and 
plaques of Cnossus, the plaques and figurines of Spata, 
and the gaming-casket and other objects of Enkomi. 
Although, in the Homeric poems, the tinting of ivory is 
not alluded to as a Greek art, the Ephesian ivory statuettes 
are without doubt Ionian work. As Mr. Cecil Smith pointed 
out, in publishing the finest of them, the finely engraved 
patterns on certain of the dresses correspond closely with 
the decoration of painted pottery found on the site and 
indubitably Ionian. It may be added that they correspond 
also with textile patterns painted on fragments of large 
archaic marble sculpture from the Temple. Furthermore, 
several of the female figures wear distinctively Greek dress, 
and one carries in her hands distinctively Greek vessels. 
These considerations are enough to prove the point without 
calling in an argument from style which must ultimately 
be based on the somewhat later Ionian art-remains 
hitherto known to us. Since these themselves were possibly 
derived from the school which produced these very ivory 
statuettes, any inference from them might be held to 
involve us in a vicious circle. Ionian though they are, the 
Ephesian ivories recall, in both general and particular 
characteristics, artistic work of inner Asia. They show the 
same general tendency to conceal poverty of modelling 
under formless drapery, elaborate surface-ornament and 
meticulous treatment of external details : they show 
similar particular conventions in the treatment of animal 
muscles and animal hair. The general style of the lion- 
statuettes is that of Babylonia or early Assyria : an in- 
dividual winged sphinx has panel-work in relief on the 
forelegs, a peculiarly Assyrian feature. Several of the 
smaller ivories, too, show fashions of the East rather than 
of the Aegean. The goddess, in an exquisite little ivory 
relief, holding two lions in heraldic pose, is winged : a minia- 


ture chariot-wheel has the eight spokes of Mesopotamia : 
a stud, with human face in relief, is of a peculiar form 
found before only in Babylonia; the lotus-leaf and bud 
pattern, used on an inlay strip and on a roundel, is the 
derived and improved Mesopotamian variety of an originally 
Egyptian motive ; a double comb reproduces exactly a 
peculiar Mesopotamian form, while the simplicity of its 
ornament is in Greek taste. I need not weary you by 
accumulating proof of a fact which is not disputed. But 
I must call your attention to one point more. It was first 
noticed by Professor Sayce, I believe, that as a whole 
these Ionian statuettes present the closest and most various 
points of stylistic similitude to those ivories found by 
Layard at Nimrud, whose Aegean affinities I have already 
mentioned. Their points of resemblance to the Ephesian 
ivories enumerated by Mr. Cecil Smith (to whom belongs 
the credit of following up Professor Sayce 's suggestion) 
are even more remarkable. He noted identity in the general 
treatment of the draped human form, with its elaborately 
minute surface detail and very summary modelling, and 
in the particular treatment of the eye, which is shown 
always at Nimrud and often at Ephesus with hollow 
drilled iris and harsh deep grooves for eyebrows. Two 
human figurines, one bearing distaff, the other a sup- 
posed eunuch priest with official chain, and both wearing 
high cylindrical headgear, stand in very close relation, 
in both style and attributes, to Nimrud objects : while the 
dress of several of Layard's figurines, including a Ttorvia 
6r)puv who is wingless as in Aegean art, is hardly distin- 
guishable from the early Greek. 

Mr. Cecil Smith was so greatly impressed by this parallel- 
ism that he has proposed an actual Ionian origin for the 
Nimrud ivories. This suggestion, if accepted, would modify 
seriously the problem of the origin of Ionian art. Two 
facts are incontrovertible about the Nimrud ivories. First* 
both the circumstances of their discovery and their style 
demand their ascription to at least a century earlier than 
the Ephesian ivories. Second, with all their Aegean and 


Ionian affinities, they are very distinctly more Oriental in 
subject, style, and treatment than anything Aegean or Ionian 
yet found. On Mr. Smith's supposition we stand, as we look 
at the Nimrud ivories, before the earliest known Ionian 
documents, belonging almost to the beginnings of Ionian 
culture, as usually dated, and find these much more strongly 
Oriental than the next set of documents available, the 
Ephesian. It might be pleaded that the Orientalism of the 
Nimrud ivories resulted from their being the product of 
Ionians domiciled in Assyria, or of Ionians supplying an 
Oriental market. But that is to degrade Ionian art- work 
in its early stages to a low level of eclectic imitativeness, 
which hardly prepares us for the subsequent rapidity of its 
progress. It would be more natural to draw another 
inference ; namely, that Ionian civilization in its beginning 
came under very strong and direct Oriental influences, and 
that its subsequent history was one of gradual emancipation 
from that Orientalism. A plausible theory enough, present- 
ing, however, certain difficulties. How shall we account for 
such very strong and direct influences of the East thus 
early on the Ionian coast ? How shall we explain the 
technical skill displayed so early by Ionians ? How were 
either Ionian craftsmen or Ionian handiwork conveyed so 
early to the Tigris ? There are obvious considerations 
which lessen these difficulties. The antecedent existence of 
Aegean art, for example, and its intimate relations with 
the East might account for much. But, for myself, I confess 
that a prior difficulty stands in the way of my acceptance 
of Mr. Cecil Smith's proposal. The Nimrud ivories are, to 
my thinking, altogether too Oriental in subject and style 
to have proceeded from any art with as much of the 
European spirit as even the Aegean had, still more the 
Ionian. I am convinced that further research on inland 
north Syrian sites will produce parallels to them, and that 
they will soon be recognized as the work of southern Hittite 
craftsmen. I do not say this without having positive 
reason ; but, for the present, I am not permitted to quote 
the evidence on which I rely. 


Finally, I must notice very briefly other evidence of 
Eastern influence offered by the Ephesian documents*. 
There are stylistic borrowings from Egypt, but whether by 
direct contact or through some medium it is hard to deter- 
mine. Not a single object of certainly Egyptian fabric 
came to light. In the company of pseudo-Egyptian trin- 
kets, such as scarabs with garbled hieroglyphs of a class 
also found largely at Naukratis and in Rhodes, and in the 
company of obviously imitated amulets, glazed bowls show- 
ing alien variants of Egyptian decoration, and the like, 
occurred one or two greatly perished objects in paste, which 
might have been made by Egyptian hands ; for instance, an 
antefix in the shape of a Bes-head. But more probably 
even this must be relegated to the class of pseudo-Egyptian 
imitations. Among the pottery, only two or three sherds 
can be doubtfully assigned to Naukratite fabric. 

Other classes in which Egyptian influence appears are 
very few, and in no case is the parallelism to objects, which 
have actually been found in Egypt, at all close. Witness, 
for example, certain pendants in the form of truncheons and 
of human legs. If the rather remote parentage of these to 
Nilotic pendants be admitted, it can only be with a reserva- 
tion that the Ephesian examples have undergone consider- 
able modification at non-Egyptian hands. On the other 
hand, in several features where Egyptian parallelism might 
be looked for, as e. g. in representations of sphinxes, one 
does not find it. On the whole it may be said emphatically 
that the Ephesian evidence for direct or indirect influences 
of Egypt exerted on Ionia is hardly worth mentioning beside 
that for influences of inner Asia — a conclusion whose bearing 
on the whole Ionian problem will be stated presently. 

It is back into the hinterland of Asia that all the other 
alien vestiges at Ephesus seem to lead us. One of the novel 
features in the Ephesian Treasure was the repeated presence 
of the hawk as a religious attribute. No other bird was 
represented at all. The hawk appeared in the hand of a 
statuette, presumably of the goddess, and many times over 
as a pendant, as a brooch-design, as a free-standing figure, 

Ill IONIA 63 

as an applique ; but most often perched atop a long pole, 
erect in one case on the head of a statuette of the goddess 
or of a votary. The dove we know as an attribute of the 
Nature Goddess elsewhere, especially in Aegean art and in 
the archaic Cypriote. But the hawk in a similar relation 
has been noticed so far only on a gold plaque from 
Camirus in the British Museum, and in ' Hittite ' sculptures 
of Cappadocia ; while its elevation on a pole recalls certain 
Cappadocian bronzes, published by Chantre, and the eagle- 
column of Kara Kush in Commagene. The parallel of 
Egyptian hawk-figures is not nearly so close. The treatment 
of lion-figures also, not only in ivory, but as decorative 
motives, is distinctly Oriental. Those in particular, which 
appear heraldically posed on either side of a quaint wingless 
figure on an electrum plaque, betray, in the hugeness of their 
heads, the attempt to reproduce nature which characterizes 
the Assyrian lions, and has influenced leonine representations 
so far westward as central Phrygia. To the East the long- 
eared gryphon with frontal horn can be traced, as can also 
the goddess winged or grasping her swelling breasts. The 
glazed ware too, if the pseudo-Egyptian objects be ex- 
cepted, seems in all its varieties, even when most like that 
found at Camirus, to resemble the glazed clays of Babylonia 
more closely than the glazed pastes of the Nile. Finally let 
me point out that the nearest affinities in form or ornament 
to the Ephesian objects, whether in electrum, silver, or 
bronze, are presented by two groups of metal objects, found 
previously in inland Asia Minor. These are a small hoard 
of gold trinkets unearthed some twenty-five years ago in the 
Maeander valley near Tralles, and now in the Louvre ; and 
the contents of certain tumuli, excavated at Gordium, in 
north-eastern Phrygia, by the brothers Korte. 



Ik the preceding lecture various items of evidence were 
brought together, whose cumulative testimony seems to 
indicate two conclusions. First, Ionian civilization was 
fundamentally derived from the sub-Aegean culture, revived 
and to some extent leavened by a mid-European element. 
Second, it owed much in its infant and adolescent stages to 
influences of inland Asia. It is necessary now to consider 
by what routes and through whose mediation these latter 
influences could have reached the coast-land of the West. 

The great preponderance of Asiatic as compared with 
Egyptian cultural influence, in such early Ionian products 
as the Ephesian objects, constitutes in itself a strong 
argument in favour of overland routes through the Anatolian 
peninsula. But not, of course, a conclusive one. The 
antiquities of the maritime Semitic peoples of Syria show 
them to have been at least as much indebted to Mesopotamia 
as to Egypt — indeed distinctly more to the former than to 
the latter. Mesopotamian models may, therefore, have, 
been brought also by Semites oversea. But, even if in a 
minority, borrowings from Egypt are so marked a feature of 
Phoenician culture, that one would naturally expect much 
more evidence of their secondary effect on Ionia than the 
local Ionian remains attest, had the Phoenicians been the 
main transmitters of Oriental models. 

In any case, there were overland ways open and in active 
use during the required period. What were these ways ? 
Nature has laid down three main routes, and three only, 
from central Asia Minor to the western coast ; and so well 
has she marked these that traffic has been fain to follow 
them so far back as human memory runs, and follows them 
at this day. Enumerated from north to south they are 
these. First, that which follows the Sangarius valley from 


the neighbourhood of Angora towards the north-west angle 
of the peninsular coast. Second, that of the Hermus valley, 
leading from the neighbourhood of Afium Kara Hissar to 
the sea at a point on the coast between the islands of Chios 
and Mitylene. Third, one which starts from the neighbour- 
hood of Konia, drops into the Lycus valley, and thence by 
way of the lower Maeander attains the sea just south of 
the island of Samos. These three roads are linked one to 
another by a diagonal route which runs from Iconium north- 
westwards, through Afium Kara Hissar, and down a tribu- 
tary of the Sangarius, the modern Porsuk River. The 
northernmost and southernmost of the three main roads, 
if produced eastwards, will turn the flanks of the central 
salt steppe and run on over the upland of Cappadocia. 
Thence by easy gradients and fairly open passes both the 
Syrian and Mesopotamian areas, and also the Armenian 
and Iranian, can be reached. 

Scattered about the heads of all these three main ways 
over a broad belt, through which lies every possible line of 
their continuation into the inner continent, are found the 
striking remains of that newly recognized inland society 
of the Hatti, which Greek tradition knew dimly as ' White 
Syrian', and scholars have hitherto called Syro-Cappadocian 
or Hittite. About a third of the way down the northern- 
most of the three roads, and touching both the head of the 
second road and the diagonal connecting route, lies the 
district famous for the rock-monuments of the Phrygian 
society. Athwart the lower part of the second and third 
roads — the two which, be it noted, alone debouch in Ionia— 
was seated the Lydian society. These three societies, linked 
one to another by through routes, and all to Mesopotamia 
on the one hand, and to the Aegean world on the other, by 
continuations of those routes, have to be considered in 
relation to Ionia. 

One only was in direct geographical contact with Meso- 
potamia, namely, the first-named. This society is shown, by 
its monuments, to have had certainly the most extensive- 
power, and to have been earliest in date. If there were an 



overland chain of communication between Mesopotamia 
and Ionia, the Hatti must have furnished the easternmost 
link. Not suspected by modern scholars till less than 
forty years ago, then recognized for a while in Syria only, 
and not till lately acknowledged to have been at least 
as much Anatolian as Syrian, the 'Hittite' civilization is 
found by almost every successive explorer of Asia Minor 
to have had a wider area than his predecessors imagined, 
and to have more thoroughly filled its area. It is now a 
wholly obsolete view that the Anatolian ' Hittite ' monu- 
ments are but strayed memorials of raiding parties from 
a Syrian capital. Hardly less obsolete is the belief that 
they mark the mere passing presence of warriors and 
merchants circling around two or three Cappadocian centres, 
whether these were Syrian colonies or not. The latest 
discoveries of Sir William Ramsay and Miss Gertrude Bell 
in the Lycaonian and south Phrygian regions, and of the 
Liverpool and Cornell Expeditions in southern Cappa- 
docia, added to data collected by officials of the Constan- 
tinople Museum, make it perfectly clear that ' Hittite ' 
civilization was at home over all central and eastern Asia 
Minor during a certain period. It sat right astride of all 
routes from the Aegean Sea to inner Asia, and for that 
matter, since it also occupied all fertile land in north Syria, 
of all eastward continental routes whatsoever from the 
Mediterranean. Wherever and whenever deep excavations 
come to be undertaken hereafter over the immense area 
between the head-waters of the Syrian Orontes and those 
of the Anatolian Sangarius, and between Mesopotamia and 
the western edge of the Anatolian plateau, a ' Hittite ' 
stratum will be looked for, and seldom in vain. 

Two conclusions have long been accepted about these 
remains. First, that the period, of which they are memo- 
rials, comes down as late at least as the end of the eighth 
century, and ascends thence to a remote antiquity, whereto 
no superior limit can be fixed later than 2000 B.C. Second, 
that the civilization, represented by those monuments, fell, 
in its later period, under strong Mesopotamian influence. 


Indeed, with the expansion of the Assyrian monarchy, 
it can almost be said to have been absorbed by Mesopo- 
tamian culture. These two conclusions are very important 
to our present purpose. If there existed all over central 
Asia Minor, down to the opening of the archaic Hellenic 
period, a civilization permeated by Mesopotamian influ- 
ences, the first and most vital link in the required overland 
chain between the Tigris and Ionia may be considered 

Both these conclusions have been powerfully supported 
by the remarkable results of the only extensive scientific 
excavation yet undertaken in inner Asia Minor, that now 
in progress under the auspices of the Berlin Archaeological 
and Nearer Asia Societies at Boghazkeui in north-western 
Cappadocia. Here Drs. Winckler and Puchstein, with 
assistants, are exploring the large city whose existence, 
ruins, and singular rock-sculptures were made known to 
scholars by Texier and Hamilton more than seventy years 
ago, and first scientifically surveyed by MM. Perrot and 
Guillaume in the sixties. But the earliest recognition of 
them for ' Hittite ' is to be credited to Sayce. Situated not 
far east of Angora, but beyond the Halys, this strong place 
lies on the natural eastward continuation of the northern 
continental road. On that account and because of the 
obvious importance of its remains, it has generally been 
guessed to be the Pterium or Pteria, which, according to 
Herodotus, King Croesus captured on his march beyond 
the Halys. But that identification remains a guess, in no 
way confirmed as yet by the excavations. Latterly the 
Pterian name has been claimed for an early site discovered 
at Ak-alan, in the lowest part of the Halys basin, which 
more nearly fulfils the indication given by Herodotus, that 
Pteria was Kara ^tv^Trrjv tto\iv ttjv ku Evfci^o) novrcd /xaAiord 

The results of Winckler's excavation, so far as it has gone, 
have yet to be published in any but the most summary form. 
Almost the only discovery, about which we have been in- 
formed in detail, is that of disiecta membra of archives, 

E 2 


written on clay tablets in cuneiform script and in two 
languages, the one Babylonian, the other presumably the 
local tongue. Not only do the script of all, and the language 
of some of these documents proclaim that the Cappadocian, 
or Hatti, and the Mesopotamian civilizations were in close 
connexion, but the contents of some of the tablets, which 
are couched in the Babylonian language, speak to very 
intimate political relations. The Kings of the Hatti from 
Subbiluliuma to that monarch, whom Rameses II called 
Khetasar, seem to have kept Babylon informed of their 
wars and treaties, and the last-named king wrote to the 
Babylonian Court, after Katashmanturgu's death, a letter 
which argues that the two Powers had common friends 
and common fears. In Subbiluliuma's time, the opening 
of the fourteenth century b. c, the Hatti of Cappadocia 
(though not for the first time) appear to have swept in force 
into Syria, overcome the Mitanni on the middle Euphrates, 
and established themselves at Carchemish. Thenceforward 
geographical position and trade kept them in the closest 
touch with Mesopotamia, and they felt the earliest effects 
of the rise of the new north Semitic power on the Tigris. 
From the reign of Tiglath Pileser I (1100 B.C.), at any rate, 
the Hatti were in constant relations, hostile or neutral, with 
the Ninevites, and thenceforward their art shows such 
marked Assyrian characteristics that it hardly retains its 
individuality. Both at that epoch, which falls very near 
the traditional date of Ionian beginnings, and previously, 
Mesopotamian influences evidently had easy passage on to 
the Anatolian plateau. The confirmation of this fact by 
Winckler's discoveries is what most concerns our present 
purpose, among all the remarkable results of his excava- 
tion of Boghazkeui. 

That the Hatti monarchy, however, could ever have come 
into direct contact with infant Ionia there is no reason to 
suppose. The period at which it seems possible that it 
extended its political might to the Aegean, and left as 
memorials the rock figures of Nymphi, must be placed 
much earlier than the usual date assigned to Ionian coloniza- 


tion. I take it to be highly probable that that period 
coincided with the earlier part of the Late Minoan Age, and 
not less probable that the Hatti realm was that inland 
continental Power which, as I have assumed, kept Aegean 
settlers off the Anatolian coasts. I said in an earlier con- 
nexion that this assumption would gain much in probability 
if it could be shown that a strong inland Anatolian Power 
did actually deoay about the period usually assigned to the 
colonial expansion of Hellas. Let us look to the annals of 
that northern Mesopotamian Power, whose rise to supremacy 
in the old Babylonian area was foreseen and dreaded by 
the king of the Hatti, if we may judge by one of the 
newly-found letters addressed to the Court of Babylon. 
A large part of the known history of Assyria consists in 
records of recurrent attacks on these Hatti and neighbour- 
ing peoples. These ended in the complete subjection of 
the Syrian part of the Hatti realm, about the close of the 
eighth century B.C., when Carchemish and its king were 
captured by Sargon III, and the latter raided into Asia 
Minor. But we can also trace earlier Assyrian marches and 
annexations far beyond Taurus. There can be little doubt 
that not only the Syrian but the Cappadocian province 
suffered a long series of disastrous shocks, resulting in 
repeated amputations, during the centuries at the close of 
the second and the opening of the first millennia before our 
era. If Cappadocia was not denuded of all the southern 
part of its Federation or Empire, and did not itself become 
tributary to Assyria till after 1000 b. c, it had demonstrably 
been weakened sufficiently long before to account satis- 
factorily for the withdrawal of its political influence from 
the Aegean shores. The Nymphi figures were left high and 
dry by an ever-receding tide, and the long-pent forces of 
the western isles and Aegean coasts found opportunity at 
last to flow eastward. 

It was apparently out of this ruin of Hatti power that 
two Anatolian monarchies rose successively into the view 
of history in Western regions, which probably had been 
previously subject to Cappadocia. Of these, that which 


seems to have attained earliest to a position conspicuous 
from afar was the Phrygian. The Assyrians did not come 
to knowledge of it till they had broken down the Hatti 
barrier. In their inscriptions they make no allusion to 
Phrygia till nearly the close of the eighth century, when it 
appears as theland of the Muski with a king Mita, i.e. Midas. 
But to the West it wasj)robably known much earlier. As 
Professor W. M. Ramsay said just twenty years ago, in the 
masterly study of Phrygian art which he contributed to the 
Journal of Hellenic Studies, its kings, prior to the establish- 
ment of the Mermnad dynasty in Lydia, ' bulked more 
impressively in the Greek mind than any other non-Greek 
i monarchy : their language was the original language and 
f the speech of the Goddess herself ; their country was the 
land of great fortified cities, and their kings were the 
associates of the gods themselves.' Nor was it only from afar 
that the Greeks of Asia heard of Phrygian royalty. We are 
told that a princess of Cyme was wedded by a Phrygian 
king in the eighth century, and that at least one prince 
of the Midas name sent offerings to the Delphic shrine. 
Interposed between the Asiatic Greeks and the home of the 
old Hatti society, the Phrygian state seems to have concealed 
the latter almost entirely from Greek view until its own 
collapse at the hands of the Cimmerian hordes ; and not till 
' it related the expedition of the last king of semi-Hellenized 
Lydia beyond the Halys, did Greek literature make its soli- 
tary reference to the long moribund empire of Cappadocia. 
The impression made by Phrygian power on the Greek 
mind is fully justified by the material remains which the 
former has left to our day. Even Boghazkeui cannot 
show such a wonderful group of rock monuments as distin- 
guishes that hilly district between Afium Kara Hissar and 
ancient Dorylaeum, which commanded both the Sangarius 
and Hermus roads to the sea. The huge scarp, carved with 
geometric maeanders in imitation of a curtain, hung below 
a decorated pediment which is inscribed in a Greek- 
seeming alphabet with the style and titles of one of the 
Midaean monarchs, remains the grandest of Anatolian tombs ; 


and there are above a score other sepulchral facades, not far 
away, almost worthy to be compared with it. The Acropolis 
above the beetling crags about the Midas Tomb has a 
fortified summit nearly half a mile in length ; and, in all 
likelihood a large lower town, which waits the explorer's 
spade, spread about its base. There is no region of ancient 
monuments which would be better worth examination, 
both above and below ground, than this home of the 
Phrygian power ; none that can be recommended more 
strongly to a Western nation prepared to spend a few years 
and some thousands of pounds in elucidating the origins of 
Greek civilization. Several other neighbouring cities offer 
hardly less tempting remains, notably that to which pertained 
the rock tombs of Ayazinn with their famous reliefs of lions 
and panoplied warriors, and that other on and about the 
dizzy acropolis of Kumbet. In no case is there great depth 
of overlying deposit, or much cumber of later remains. 
All the sites lie in a fair, cool upland district amid pine 
woods and beside running waters, and are tenanted by 
a sturdy, pastoral peasant folk. Phrygia is a veritable 
digger's paradise. 

It was made clear long ago by Perrot and Ramsay that 
the Phrygian homeland was once pervaded by strong Syro- 
Cappadocian influence. There is at least one rock monu- 
ment bearing Hittite hieroglyphs at the Midas City itself ; 
and a fragment of a stone, similarly inscribed, was dug 
out of a tumulus near Beykeui, a few miles away. On the 
east the sculptures of Giaur Kalessi in Galatia link these 
Hittite monuments to these of north Cappadocia ; and on 
the west, the Nymphi figures, so remarkably like those of 
Giaur Kalessi in pose and character, continue the series 
to within sight of the Aegean Sea. Although, for lack of 
excavation we have, so far, practically nothing whereby to 
judge the earlier Phrygian civilization, except rock monu- 
ments, there are enough features in these to refer their 
artistic origin eastward even to Mesopotamia. To take but 
one example. Mesopotamian is the general treatment of the 
ubiquitous lion with his heavy square head and conven- 


tionalized hair and externally shown muscles, who is often 
posed erect in the familiar heraldic opposition of the Orient. 
That before the epoch of great Phrygian kings, whose fame 
reached the early Asiatic Greeks, Phrygia was politically 
dependent on Cappadocia and under the influence of its 
civilization, hardly admits of question. Therefore, it is 
scarcely less certain that those influences of Mesopotamia, 
which were early and increasingly felt in Cappadocian 
civilization, must have had free play down, at any rate, to 
the western edge of the plateau of Asia Minor. 
„ There has, however, been noted in the Phrygian monu- 
mental remains another cultural element, which seems not 
Cappadocian. This has been generally connected with 
a different racial stock, which later Greek tradition regarded 
as the typical Phrygian, and derived from quite another 
soujjce, namely, south-eastern Europe. I need not reca- 
pitulate the familiar literary and mythological evidence, 
which has caused the identity of the Thraco-Briges with 
one element in the Phrygian society to be accepted. There 
is every reason to accept it, and to believe that in the 
period of Hatti decline on the one hand, and of Aegean 
eclipse on the other, tribal movements did take place 
acrdss the Hellespont, some echo of which probably yet 
resounds in the songs of the War of Troy. That story was 
to repeat itself a little less than a thousand years later, 
when Kelts from Illyria would sweep through the broken 
Macedonian kingdoms to make in northern Phrygia the 
Galatia of Roman history. It is by those same movements, 
without doubt, that we must explain the traces of Phrygian 
societies on the Aegean shores which are preserved for us in 
cult-legends of Mount Ida ; in traditions of a Phrygian 
Troad ; in the localization of Greek Pelopid myths about 
Smyrna, and, probably, in the actual survival there of certain 
early monuments already referred to, namely the Tantalus 

I need not dwell on this European element in Phrygian 
civilization, since my present theme is the transmission of 
Mesopotamian influences. And it is the less necessary 


to do so because the monumental evidence for its presence 
is, for the most part, of comparatively late date, and 
probably posterior to the Ionian Migration. But, for a 
certain reason, it is not without an indirect bearing on our 
problem. It was probably responsible for those features in 
the later Phrygian monuments which are so closely parallel 
to features of the Ionian and Carian remains that they tell 
strongly in favour of early intercourse between the west 
coast and the interior. Such, for example, are the alphabetic 
script with which several of the Sangarius monuments and 
some Cappadocian ones are inscribed ; the armament of . 
crested helmet and round targe borne by warriors on a 
certain Phrygian relief ; and the pediments and mouldings 
seen on many Phrygian facades. These features are so 
Greek in appearance that they have been almost universally 
assumed to be derived from Ionia. That, however, is not 
so necessarily their true history as has been supposed. 
They all make an earlier appearance on monuments in 
Phrygia than in western Anatolia. Even in the case of 
the Phrygian alphabet, if we ascribe its forms and values to 
Ionia, we are presuming their use there at a remoter age than 
one of which we have any memorials. And if the Phoenician 
alphabet is no longer to be regarded as the sole parent 
of the Ionian, the arguments by which Ramsay supported 
both his theories of the derivation of the Phrygian system, 
whether from Cyme or from Sinope, cease to be cogent. 
Some form of linear signary is proved by the incised pot- 
sherds found at Tordos in Transylvania to have been in use 
in neolithic south-eastern Europe ; and the famous 
inscription of Lemnos, which is in a character like the 
Phrygian, though not in the Phrygian language, occurred, 
it must be remembered, geographically on the possible 
route of passage. One cannot help suspecting that the 
derivation of the Phrygian alphabet from the Greek has 
been over easily accepted, and that the former may have 
been rather an independent selection from that large body 
of linear symbols which seem to have been in use from very 
early times among different and widely distributed sections 


of the dark ' Mediterranean Race ' in the Aegean, west 
Asiatic, and south-east European areas. If that be the 
true history pf the Phrygian writing system, it may very 
well have been the parent rather than the child of the 
Asiatic Greek alphabet. 

For my present purpose, however, the mere fact that these 
parallel features exist is alone of importance. It is difficult 
to suppose them all of independent origin in each of the 
two civilizations ; and if not independent, they equally 
prove the passage of influence along the inland ways of 
Asia Minor, whether they originated in the West or in the 
East. But of course they are of more support to my general 
argument if they were present in Phrygia before they 
appeared in Ionia. For in that case, they add their testimony 
to the rest which speaks to a flow of influence from the interior 
to the western coast in the early Ionian period. I will 
therefore venture to say in conclusion that the balance 
of evidence is distinctly more in favour of Phrygian influence 
upon early Ionian society than of early Ionian influence 
on Phrygian society. In the history of the latter it is long 
before we can detect any certain traces of Hellenic influence. 
While the Lydians were armed as Greeks in the army of 
Xerxes the Phrygians retained their Cappadocian equip- 
ment. The Phrygian language persisted in local use down 
to the Christian era. 

Such connexion as there was between Phrygia and early 
Ionia probably was conducted in the main not by direct 
communication but through yet another link in the inland 
chain, that Lydian society through whose territory ran 
for a long distance the two routes leading from the interior 
to Ionia. Concerning Lydia our knowledge is at once 
greater and less than concerning any other non-Greek 
society of Asia Minor. On the one hand the literary tradi- 
tions and even the historical facts, recorded about early 
Lydia by Greeks, are far fuller and more informing than 
about either Phrygia or Cappadocia. On the other, the 
material evidence from Lydian soil is much more scant in 
quantity and poor in quality. Both classes of evidence 


remain very nearly as they were more than a quarter of 
a century ago, when Radet had just published his monu- 
mental monograph on the Mermnad dynasty, and the 
prophetic audacity of Sayce had put forth the series oi 
conjectures which make up the Lydian chapter of his Early 
Empires of the East. When the latter startled historians 
by boldly declaring that Lydia had once been a ' Hittite 
satrapy ', he relied in the first place on the Syro-Cappadocian 
character which he claimed for the rock-sculptures of the 
Kara Bel near Nymphi, and for the ' Niobe ' near Magnesia : 
in the second place on an interpretation of certain data 
recorded by Greeks concerning the pre-Mermnad dynasties. 
One of these, the Heraclid, opens with two Mesopotamian 
names, Belus and Ninus, and has for its eponymous 
hero the god whom Sayce identifies with the Oriental 
Sandan. His was a hazardous guess at that time. But 
whatever new light has been shed on inner Asia Minor 
since has served rather to support, than refute it. Our 
estimate of Hatti power, at any rate in the fifteenth and 
fourteenth centuries B.C., has been growing all the time. 
Since Winckler has discovered that a Cappadocian king 
could venture to admonish Katashmanturgu's heir in 
Babylon, it no longer appears in any way fantastic to 
believe that a Cappadocian empire may have reached 
at one time to the Aegean Sea ; and it may well be that 
the rock monuments near Smyrna, which are accompanied 
by ' Hittite ' hieroglyphs, are memorials neither of an inde- 
pendent local society nor of a mere Cappadocian raid, 
but of a definite political occupation by the power of the 

Mesopotamian influence, then, must have been free to 
flow onwards at some period from Cappadocia and from 
Phrygia down the valleys of the Hermus and Maeander. 
But alas ! there has been hardly any effort made to find 
whether traces of its passage exist or not, or indeed to learn 
anything at all by excavation in the teeming Lydian soil. 
The surface of the country has not been neglected. The 
careful journeys made by Buresch across and across it went 


far to determine what may and may not be found above 
Lydian ground. But he travelled before things Aegean, 
Syro-Cappadocian, or early Ionian were as well known and 
distinguished as now, and he died leaving his work incom- 
plete, and rough notes for others to edit. Nor did he 
go far off beaten tracks. Much of Lydia is mountain, 
which brigands for two generations past have chosen as 
their peculiar haunt. Mention the Boz Dagh, the ancient 
Tmolus, in the hearing of any Smyrniote, and he will tell you 
how little is known of its recesses, and how Europeans fear 
to penetrate them. Rumours have reached scholars of more 
than one rock-sculpture in that massif — one was reported to 
Sayce by Spiegel thai as long ago as 1870 — but no one has 
cared to verify the reports. There is a reputation still to 
be made by an archaeological surveyor who limits himself 
to no more than the vilayet of Aidin. 

Even more virgin is the field for the archaeological digger. 
There has been practically no excavation at all in central- 
western Anatolia outside the Ionian cities. The great and 
famous site of Sardes, with its extraordinarily long and varied 
historical record, has scarcely been probed. Many explorers 
from Schliemann onwards have desired it, but all have 
shrunk from the cost and labour which its deep silt and 
overlying late strata would involve. Those who have made 
attempts on its grave-field, now called Bin Tepe, The 
Thousand Mounds, and on the great tumulus supposed to 
be that Tomb of Alyattes, which was described by Herodotus, 
have met with little reward. They have either found 
nothing except what earlier robbers had left, or nothing at 
all for want of perseverance. There are, however, two frag- 
ments of relief and some mottled vases and fragments from 
this great cemetery now in the British Museum, of which 
the latter are interesting on account of a wavy decoration, 
distantly recalling the mottled Vasilike ware of Minoan Crete. 
An American syndicate now proposes to attack once more 
the well-known Temple site, where stand two columns of 
Hellenistic period. If it can carry out its project, it will 
assuredly open up the pre-Greek stratum, of which a section 


has been exposed already by natural denudation at a not 
distant point. It is to be hoped that its success may be 
great enough there to induce it to dig all the site. The old 
citadel, now weathered to a razor edge, is hopeless ground 
in itself ; but much must have been washed down from it 
into the talus all round the foot. No excavation in Medi- 
terranean lands is more devoutly to be desired than that 
of this great Lydian city, which must have acted as the main 
ultimate link between Ionia and the East. 

With the exception of a little rummaging in the later city 
of Tralles there is no other excavation to record. The net 
result is that we have almost no material documents what- 
ever of a society which, the early Greeks commonly believed, 
had taught them many of the higher arts of life. Not a 
single document, for example, has been found in Lydia 
which can be used to illustrate the writing inscribed, 
according to Herodotus, on pillars over the Tomb of Alyattes, 
or to give us further knowledge of the local speech, extinct 
at the Christian era, whereof a few words, all seemingly Indo- 
European, have been preserved to us by grammarians. An 
illegible stone found near Thyatira and since lost, and a 
doubtful fragment of scratched stone, bought in Smyrna 
and now at Oxford, claim alone to represent Lydian written 
documents found in Lydia. From alien lands there is one 
rude graffito, cut by some foreign labourer in the sandstone 
quarries of Silsileh on the Nile, which has been proposed 
for Lydian by its finder, Sayce, on the strength of two of the 
names it contains. Of the gold work of this country, whose 
riches, from the time of Gyges to that of Croesus, were a 
proverb in Greek mouths and are a proverb still, we have 
only a fair number of electrum coins and two groups of 
trinkets. One is of very rude type, found, perhaps, at 
Sardes in 1898 ; the other, already alluded to in the preceding 
lecture, is in more developed style, and was found near 
Tralles nearly thirty years ago, and doubtfully called Lydian. 
A few small bronze objects in Western museums have been 
reported as found in Lydia ; but their provenience is doubtful 
and their importance is, in any case, trivial. 


This lack of archaeological evidence is only redeemed, to 
a certain degree, by the literary traditions of the Greeks. 
These, however, make it abundantly clear, in any case, 
that the relations between the coastal cities and Lydia must 
have been very intimate in the archaic Ionian period, and 
that Lydia seemed to Ionia to possess the older culture. 
The latter evidently held the former to have been the main 
trading Power of the West Asiatic world — ' le grand inter- 
mediate ' in Radet's phrase. The belief of Herodotus, 
himself an Asiatic Greek, that the Lydians first used coined 
money in precious metals and were the first retail-traders 
(KairriXoi), cannot be too much insisted upon. For, 
taken together, these statements can only mean that, in 
Ionian opinion, it was chiefly Lydians who had traded with 
the Greek cities in their early days. So significant indeed 
is Herodotus's statement that it seems to have troubled even 
one who rated Lydian influence as high as Radet did. He 
tried to minimize it by suggesting that by Kair^Xoi Hero- 
dotus meant merely inn-keepers. But the word KdirrjXos 
never means, in Greek, what we understand in the West 
by an inn-keeper, or even a publican, but rather always a 
general store-keeper, like the proprietor of a Greek bokal 
at this day. Such a man trades in all sorts of comestibles, 
hardware, and the like, as well as in liquors, but does not 
proffer lodging to travellers. 

Herodotus's earlier statement that Lydians and Greeks 
had similar customs, except in one peculiarly Asiatic 
respect, must, perhaps, be heavily discounted by allowance 
for the reflex influence of Ionia, which, prior to the historian's 
day, had long been penetrating Lydia. But other statements 
made by him and by other Greek authorities show it to 
have been common belief that early Greece owed to Lydia 
most of its knowledge of luxuries. Herodotus records too, 
without comment, that Lydians claimed to have taught 
the Greeks many of their games. Games do not occupy a 
society until it has attained to some leisure and super- 
fluity. When one civilization stands to another as its 
teacher in luxuries and sports, there is no doubt which of 


the two is regarded by the other as the older and more 

We may safely assume then that there was a compara- 
tively highly cultivated society in the upper Lydian valleys 
before there was one in the coastal cities. Lydia probably 
was, when as yet Asiatic Greece was not. You will recall 
that remarkable Herodotean story of Tyr semis, who ' in 
the reign of Atys, son of Manes ' (Phrygian names both), 
led half the Lydian folk down to the bay of Smyrna, and 
there built ships, wherein he sailed away to found a colony 
in Umbrian Italy. In the belief of those who told that 
story, there can hardly have been an Aeolic or Ionian 
Smyrna existent on the bay in the reign of this Atys, though 
there was already an inland monarchy able to penetrate 
to the coasts. The story seems to indicate just such a 
state of things, as we have conjectured, probably once 
prevailed on the Anatolian shores. There was some inland 
Power yet strong enough to keep Western settlers in the 
offing. At that epoch Lydia was probably still under Hatti 
rule, or rather, as the royal names in the story suggest, 
under Phrygian clients of that power. We know from 
other sources that there were close relations between Lydia 
and Phrygia under pre-Mermnad princes of the former 
country. The fact is implied, not only by the eponymic 
of the legendary At y ads, but by the story of Adrastus, son 
of Gordius, son of Midas, who came as a suppliant to King 
Croesus, avhpCov <t>i\(x>v tKyovo? £(x>v. And cultural influence 
of Phrygia is illustrated by the oldest Lydian coins, the 
lion-head types upon which cannot fail to remind of the 
rock-sculptures of the Sangarius basin. 

There is good reason to think that this influence amounted 
to Phrygian political dominance over Lydia in pre-Mermnad 
times. Yet Lydia herself had earlier kings. As is well- 
known, her dynastic history, as handed down to us by the 
Greeks, does not begin with the Mermnadae. Herodotus 
allows for no less than twenty-two generations of a previous 
dynasty, the Heraclid, and for even an earlier dynasty still, 
and the historical character of certain of these predecessors 


of the Mermnadae has been conclusively demonstrated by 
Gelzer. But the coincidence of the great increase in Lydian 
power, ascribed to the efforts of the earliest Mermnadae, 
with the final collapse of the Phrygian monarchy under the 
pressure of a Cimmerian invasion points almost certainly 
to the latter fact having been at least partial cause of the 
former. There can be little doubt the Mermnadae were, 
in fact, the first independent monarchs of Lydia. Earlier 
kings had been but vassals and clients of Powers lying further 
inland. When ' Guggu, King of Luddi ', first of the Merm- 
nads, applied for help to Assurbanipal, the Great King 
recorded in his annals that the request came from a people 
of which neither he nor his ancestors had previously heard. 
For theretofore Lydians had been confounded in Assyrian 
view with first one Suzerain Power, and then another, lying 
nearer than they to the Tigris. 

By this chain of inland societies it is clear that the Asiatic 
and ultimately the Mesopotamian influences, which we^an 
trace in early Ionian products, may quite well have come 
down to the west Anatolian coast. The eastern centre of 
Asia Minor was for long dominated by a Power only less 
Mesopotamian than Mesopotamia itself, — a Power which 
seems to have extended its political influence at one time 
even to the Aegean Sea. If that time was anterior to the 
Greek colonization, this Power continued, none the less, 
to exist inland long after the colonists had established 
themselves, and probably for part of the time it still domi- 
nated client states lying between its own centre and the 
coast. Even when these states had shaken off its over- 
lordship, they could not rid themselves at once of pre- 
possessions created by its long predominance. The relations 
of Gyges and Assurbanipal show that Lydians at least had 
not yet ceased to look to the Tigris in the seventh century. 

For want of excavation in inland Asia Minor, however, 
for want of Kleinfunde from the Syro-Cappadocian and 
Phrygian areas, for want of practically any material docu- 
ments of Lydia whatever, we can trace but very imperfectly 
this Mesopotamian influence en route, and hardly may do 


more than show that some influence did pass westward by 
the overland ways. It remains now to inquire whether 
similar influence can have passed also by the alternative 
way of the sea, and reached Ionia through other mediation 
than the Anatolian ; and, if so, what share of responsibility 
other middlemen must take for the total element of the 
Orient in early Ionian civilization. This inquiry involves 
a discussion of the westward expansion of the Syrian Semites, 
and in particular of the Phoenicians. 




Hitherto I have failed to make much use of those 
earliest literary documents of archaic Greece, the Homeric 
Epics. The reason is simple. They, for their part, fail to 
throw much light on any part of Asia, inland or littoral, 
beyond the small district in which the Trojan War was 
waged. Homer may have begged his bread through cities 
of Ionia, which would claim him dead ; but in spite of 
these peregrinations (possibly because of them !) he has 
given posterity much less information about what lay 
east of the Aegean Sea than about what lay west thereof. 
We learn features of one or two Anatolian districts, such as 
the Caystrian Plain. But Lydians are never mentioned, 
though there is reference to Maeonians living under Tmolus. 
Phrygians march with the Trojan realm on the east and 
their land is vaguely tvreCxriTos, a land of fenced cities ; 
but nothing is said from which their true position in Anato- 
lian society could be inferred. To the Hatti realm there 
is no allusion whatever, nor any to Mesopotamian Powers. 
Why, after all, should Homer have alluded to these ? 
There were, of course, far greater monarchs in Homer's 
time and world than Agamemnon, and Powers far more 
powerful than Troy or Sparta or Mycenae : but the bard 
was not concerned with them. He had to sing but the 
fortunes of a fleet of Achaean sea-rovers, who swooped 
from the west upon a corner of a strange coast, and were 
joined by a few others from Aegean isles. The Achaeans 
landed, fought, raided, sacked, sailed away, and had no 
more to do with Asia Minor. Probably Homer could 
have told us next to nothing about the inner peninsula, 
had it been his business to do so. In any case, it was 
not his business. Therefore let no argument be based on 
his silence in this matter. 


He does mention rather often, however, the people of 
a certain Asiatic city not in Asia Minor, namely Sidon ; 
and in his earliest reference (II. vi. 290) speaks of Sidonians 
alone without other Phoenicians. These aliens are alluded 
to as notable sea-rovers and purveyors of choice goods ; but 
no individual of the race actually appears among the 
dramatis personae of the Epics, and only one, a certain 
Phaedimus of Sidon, is named. When the poet has occa- 
sion to speak of a work of fine art, he usually ascribes its 
fabrication to a Greek god — in one case even when it is 
found in a Phoenician hand. But if to a mortal, then 
sometimes to a Sidonian. In alluding to the delicate art of 
tinting ivory, he gives us to understand that this was 
peculiar to certain peoples of Asia Minor, the Maeonians 
and Carians : and there is a great deal of artistic work 
described in the Epics, especially in the Odyssey — that in 
the Spartan and Phaeacian palaces for example — which 
the poet evidently understood to be of local fabric. Indeed, 
a greater part in Homeric society is often assigned to the 
Sidonians by modern scholars than Homer himself has 
assigned them. As Professor J. L. Myres pointed out some 
years ago, by far the most of the navigation alluded to in 
the Epics is carried on by Greeks in Greek ships — a fact to 
be borne in mind by all who are fascinated by M. Victor 
Berard's Les Pheniciens et VOdyssee. What legitimately 
we may gather from the Homeric poems on the matter 
amounts to this. The society which produced these poems 
(and probably also the heroes of them) was more accus- 
tomed to the visits of Sidonian ships than to those of any 
other alien craft, and Sidonian ships brought to it some of 
the foreign products which it was wont to use. The 
Achaean society itself, however, was one of sea-roving and 
warlike adventurers, and very far from inartistic or unpro- 
ductive. When its poets ascribe its superfine works of art 
to the hands of its gods, we have no more right to assume 
they believed those works foreign, than that the saga 
writers of northern Europe regarded all the magic swords 
of Norse, German, or Danish heroes as strange products of 

F 2 


alien races. As the great man of a heroic age may become 
a demigod even in his lifetime, so a great work of primitive 
art may be ascribed to godlike hands, even by a generation 
which could remember the actual fabricator. 

The Homeric evidence, however, would alone justify us 
in conceding to the Phoenicians some part in the moulding 
of early Hellenic culture. Their cargoes of fine objects of 
art may have consisted largely of the productions of others ; 
while the residue, if we may judge by what we know of 
actual Phoenician Realien, was almost certainly of a deriva- 
tive and unspontaneous character. But through Phoenician 
mediation much must have reached the shores of Greece 
which could not have been without inspiriting effect on 
a society which, presumably, was just beginning, under the 
influence of the Achaean blood, to renew its old Aegean 
vigour, and resuscitate artistic instincts. And the Homeric 
is, of course, not the only evidence in their favour. Both 
Herodotus and Thucydides, among the earlier Greek his- 
torians, confirm the fact of Phoenician visits to prehistoric 
European Greece and the influence there of Phoenician 
trade. Philology, claiming Semitic derivation for a number 
of early place-names round the Greek coasts, has suggested 
that this trade entailed the establishment of factories and 
settlements : but not only is Homer silent about these, 
but excavators have found as yet no trace of them. 

Moreover, there is one other argument to be put to 
Phoenician credit. Even if the Cadmean legend and all 
its derivatives are under present suspicion of not having 
had any original Semitic reference at all, the Cadmean 
(J)olvl$ having been the ' red ' (i.e. dark) Aegean man, some 
Phoenician responsibility for the Greek alphabet cannot 
altogether be explained away. It is true that the recent 
discovery of an earlier script of the Greek area, some of 
whose later linear characters approximate closely to archaic 
Hellenic forms, has forced a reconsideration of the accepted 
theory, and will perhaps revolutionize our views as to the 
source from which the Phoenicians themselves derived 
alphabetic writing. It is true that the classical literary 


tradition concerning the origin of the Hellenic alphabet 
is not worth much ; for it is wholly expressed by authors 
of the Roman period, with the single exception of Herodotus, 
whose statement was perhaps the authority of all the others, 
and moreover implied not a well-known fact of the age, 
but a reasonable conjecture of the author's own. It is 
true that the variation in the alphabetic values of certain 
symbols in different parts of Greece, and the appearance 
of certain other symbols in the Hellenic system, whose forms 
and values are demonstrably not of Phoenician derivation, 
raise difficulties. It is true, finally, that a minority of the 
Hellenic characters bear names without meaning in any 
known Semitic tongue. But despite all these considera- 
tions, the double fact that the majority of the Greek 
alphabetic names are indeed Semitic, and that the Semitic 
alphabetic order is also the Hellenic order, so far as the 
shorter of the two alphabets goes, makes it certain that 
Semites, and with hardly a doubt Phoenicians, exercised 
some strong local influence when the Hellenic societies were 
first developing alphabetic writing. In communications 
between those societies Phoenicians must have been playing 
so large a part that the names, the values, and the order 
of their alphabetic symbols ultimately imposed themselves 
in a great measure all round. 

It is necessary, however, to enter a strenuous protest at 
this stage against really good evidence for the Phoenicians 
having prosecuted a carrying trade in the Aegean Sea at 
a certain epoch, being used to argue a very much wider 
conclusion. The share borne by Semites in the transmission 
of Eastern influences to Greek coasts implies neither that 
they were the only transmitters, nor that they themselves 
were a people of such high productive capacity, that they 
appeared to the infant Hellenes to be a superior race and 
masters in civilization. These exaggerations, which colour 
almost all the standard accounts of early Greek history, 
are due to a misunderstanding of various evidence. Some 
of this — for example the Homeric — was always of clear 
enough significance if carefully analysed, while the rest 


could hardly be rightly appreciated till lately. Foremost 
stands, of course, the Aegean evidence ; but thereon I need 
not waste words. The day is now past when ' Mycenean ' 
civilization was believed to owe a heavy artistic debt to 
Phoenicia, and archaeologists saw Semitic handiwork in 
the finer objects found by Schliemann. 

Another kind of evidence, however, namely the Cypriote 
of post- Aegean date, needs more consideration. Cyprus has 
often been represented as more Phoenician than Phoenicia. 
But what are the facts ? There was certainly a Phoenician 
settlement under a Phoenician dynasty at Kition, near the 
modern Larnaca. A comparatively large number of 
Phoenician inscriptions has been found there, far more 
indeed than in all Phoenicia itself. The Corpus of Semitic 
Inscriptions contains seventy-seven from Kition alone as 
against nine from the whole Syrian coast. A small number 
has been found also at the neighbouring Idalium, which 
was at one time subject to Kition. In the whole of the 
rest of the island not above a dozen Phoenician inscriptions 
in all have turned up, and these are isolated specimens ; e. g. 
one at Golgoi, one near Lapethus, one lately at Old Paphos 
and some at Chytri. The whole of these texts are of late 
date, none being earlier than the fifth century B.C., with 
the single exception of that written on the fragments of 
a bronze bowl, dedicated to Baal of Lebanon, and in all 
probability an imported object. We are told that the 
Persian King, Xerxes, when he occupied Cyprus in the 
year 479 b. c, sent to Tyre for a certain Baalmelik to found 
a dynasty at Kition ; and the actual Semitic remains in 
Cyprus do nothing to negative the contention that this 
was the beginning of Phoenician dominance in any part 
of the island whatsoever. There may have been earlier 
trading settlements, but there is no good evidence to prove 
their existence. Even the Biblical mention of Ghittim as 
a dependency of Tyre must not be insisted upon, while many 
philologists hold that the aspirated initial of the name 
precludes its identification with Kition. Since the Phoe- 
nician dynasts came to an end with Alexander's conquest, 


we cannot credit Semitic dominance in Cyprus for more 
than a century and a half : and this brief period falls 
wholly in classical time. 

Moreover, during that same period, the island remained 
otherwise Hellenic. Even in Idalium, under Semitic rule, 
inscriptions show us that the names of the leading citizens 
and the civic organization were Greek. Perrot had to 
admit this awkward fact while dealing with Cyprus as a 
mere artistic dependency of Phoenicia. He had also to 
admit certain other anti-Semitic facts about early Cyprus. 
First and foremost, its historic language, so far back 
as there are any inscriptions to witness to it, was Greek. 
Secondly, this language was expressed by a non-alpha- 
betic syllabary, which is related, not to any Semitic system 
of writing, but to a wholly different group of scripts. Since 
Perrot wrote his Cypriote chapters, we have learned a good 
deal more about that group, and on certain clay balls 
found at Enkomr have now earlier Cypriote texts to study. 
It has become clear that there was a family relation between 
the primitive Cypriote writing and the linear Cretan of 
the Late Minoan Period, which was pre-Phoenician. The 
former belongs then generically to the Aegean system. 
Cypriote syllabic writing survived in use to a very late 
age, even into the third century B.C. Not till then did it 
give way at last to the Greek alphabetic koivt]. It has often 
been remarked that the syllabic system, which thus long 
persisted, provided an extraordinarily cumbrous means of 
expressing the Greek tongue ; and the inference has been 
rightly drawn that it must have been very firmly established 
in use before the far more convenient Phoenician alphabetic 
system was introduced into the island. The latter can 
hardly be believed to have ever been used by a large, much 
less by a dominant, element in the population. 

Thirdly, the paramount Goddess of Cyprus is always 
called in the earlier inscriptions of the island by a Greek 
name, rj Fdvaaaa, the Queen. The two chief seats of her 
local worship, Paphos and Idalium, are, as it happens, the 
two towns whose Greek character is most emphatically 


attested by records of proper names. At Paphos above 
a hundred inscriptions have been found in Cypriote, Greek, 
and Roman characters, but I believe only one in Semitic 
characters. At Idalium about half a dozen Phoenician 
inscriptions have been found, none earlier than the fourth 
century. None are known from Amathus, and one only 
comes from Golgoi. Whatever the Semitic features in the 
worship of the Cypriote goddess, her chief local seats 
evidently remained predominantly Greek to the end. Nay, 
more, it may fairly be questioned whether as a matter of 
fact, there were any certainly Semitic features in her cult. 
A similar Nature Goddess has now been recognized as 
paramount divinity throughout the Aegean world. If she 
was especially honoured in the western isle of Crete, in which 
Aegean civilization seems to have developed itself from 
a remote antiquity without serious modification from 
outside, the common views of a past generation concerning 
the eastern origin of the Hellenic Aphrodite everywhere, 
and the Cypriote Queen in particular, seem to call for radical 
revision. Many features of the latter's cult, for which 
parallels used to be sought on the Syrian coast, have 
earlier parallels in the western Aegean. The cult-use of 
baetyls, for instance, was old in Crete before we have any 
actual evidence for it on the Phoenician coast. Why, then, 
affiliate the sacred Paphian stone to Byblus ? The dove 
was a divine attribute of the Aegean Goddess alike in 
Mycenae and Crete, and rested in her hand or on her head 
and perched atop the sacred baetyl. What need, then, to 
look to Syrian Ishtar for the inspiration of the dove-bearing 
figurines of Idalium and Golgoi ? The orgiastic practices 
of the Paphian temple, such as ceremonial prostitution 
(for which, by the way, our only evidence is Christian), 
had parallels of course over all West Asia, even to Armenia 
and Babylon. But they can be paralleled also at Corinth 
and in Sicily. 

If the Phoenicians exercised no influence on the language, 
the names or the script of Cyprus, and probably little or 
none on its cult, evidence can hardly be expected to show 


that they were responsible for much of its artistic expression. 
If we find, as we do, that the whole of the pottery in the 
Enkomi graves belongs to the same Aegean class as the 
Ialysus vases and the latest ' Reoccupation ' ware of Crete, 
having been lineally developed out of the style of the first 
and second Late Minoan periods ; if we find further that 
all Bronze Age ceramic and copper work in Cyprus is so 
far distinct from that of neighbouring areas, and shows 
such unmistakable signs of development from rude local 
beginnings that its native origin is unquestionable — then 
once and for ever we abandon Phoenician art as the main 
stock out of which the Cypriote has grown. As Professor 
J. L. Myres put it in the Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, 
' the most universally characteristic types of Cypriote 
pottery do not reappear in Phoenicia and consequently 
cannot have been borrowed thence ... In any case the 
evidence is strongly against any original dependence of 
Cypriote culture on any known Phoenician style. ' Further- 
more, we find clear evidence in Cyprus of transition from 
the Bronze Age style to that of the Early Iron Age. The 
great majority of decorative elements in the latter have 
survived from the former to originate that local Geometric 
ornament which thenceforward would remain characteristic 
of Cyprus. 

Turning to the objects of a more luxurious and exquisite 
sort, such, for example, as those in precious metals, in 
ivory and in compositions, we expect more evidence of 
foreign influence ; and we have found it, in fact, at Enkomi. 
But very little of that influence is certainly, or even pro- 
bably, Phoenician. There is a good deal that is Egyptian. 
Not only do scarabs and other objects in paste of actual 
Nilotic fabric form part of the Enkomi Treasure, but the 
gold-work of the latter, both for some of its designs and 
for its use of granular applique ornament, may well be 
indebted to the fine work in precious metal, which was made 
in Egypt in the Ramesside age and earlier. The recent 
discovery of a treasure of Rameses II 's time at Bubastis 
has made it quite clear that, if the polveriscolo work of 


Enkomi, of early Ionia, and of Etruria is to be traced any- 
whither, it is to the Egyptian metallurgy of the second 
millennium B.C. Nor need we seek an intermediary between 
Cyprus and the Nile. There is ample evidence to be 
deduced both from Pharaonic records and from the frequent 
occurrence of Cypriote pottery on Nilotic sites (e. g. such 
sherds were found by Petrie during his first season at 
Memphis), that Egypt and the nearest Mediterranean isle 
were in frequent and direct communication, from at least 
the time of Thothmes III. 

There is also much Asiatic influence evident in the Enkomi 
Treasure, particularly in the ivories. A commission on this 
particular art might be claimed for the Phoenicians, did its 
expression in the Enkomi objects show any of those charac- 
teristics which we associate with the best attested products 
of Phoenician art, e.g. those metal bowls with figure- 
decoration arranged in concentric zones and often accom- 
panied by Semitic inscriptions, which have been found at 
various points between Nineveh and Italy. Those charac- 
teristics, namely certain eclectic and often misunderstood 
schemes and details of ornament, and unmistakable hard- 
ness and dryness of execution, are conspicuous by their 
absence from the Enkomi ivories. Here one notes borrowed 
motives expressed with the same rare originality and life 
observed in the Cretan treatment of exotic subjects at 
a somewhat earlier Aegean period. Whatever doubt there 
be about the exact date of the Enkomi graves, there can 
be none about the source of the culture which their contents 
represent. That culture was essentially Aegean in origin 
and of local development. It borrowed more directly from 
Egypt and Mesopotamia than did the Minoan culture in 
Crete, because it lay geographically more near to those 
regions. But like the Minoan, it has transformed all 
borrowings in the crucible of its own genius. 

From the art of the Enkomi Treasure the essential features 
of Cyprian products of the archaic historic period are easily 
derived. It is not until we get to a period too late to affect 
the problem of Ionian origins that we can trace Syrian 


modification of Cypriote art. Even then it seems to be only 
a case of Syria paying back part of a debt incurred to Cyprus 
itself in a slightly earlier age. Such, and so late, for ex- 
ample, is the Syrian influence in the ' Graeco-Phoenician ' 
stone statuary and the terra-cottas, of which many examples 
are in the Cesnola collection. Indeed, Professor Myres puts 
on record so strong an opinion as this, that the Phoenicians 
had probably no art of their own at all when they first 
appeared in Cyprus. If so, it is obviously absurd not only 
to regard the Phoenicians as having formed the civilization 
of early Hellenic Cyprus, but also to take Cyprian products 
as exemplifying in their main characteristics Phoenician art. 
What they exemplify, from the Enkomi Treasure to the 
bracelet of Eteander of Paphos, is in all essentials the 
local art of an Aegeo-Hellenic community, fundamentally 
non-Semitic. If there was any artistic impulse conveyed 
by one race to another, it was the Cypriotes who in- 
spired the Phoenicians, not the Phoenicians the Cypriotes. 
That subsequently Tyrians imported their imitative wares 
into the island, which had itself done much to teach them 
to be productive of works of art — such wares as the beaten 
bowls of Amathus, for example — and that they exported 
thence Cypriote products and influences to their western 
colonies — these facts do not affect the main question. 
Such importation and exportation, so far as all our material 
evidence goes, fell in a much later period than that at which 
Hellenic civilization was in the making. 

A briefer and rather different story has to be told about 
Rhodes, the second and final station claimed for Phoenician 
influence in its presumed conquering course towards the 
West. There, too, we have to consider the fact that, in 
the Ialysus graves, the earliest local evidence bears witness 
not to a Phoenician civilization but to a sub-Aegean one 
in communication with Ramesside Egypt. You will re- 
member that Ialysus, with Lindus and Camirus, appears on 
the Achaean side in the Iliad — a fact which, for what it is 
worth, indicates that the civilization of the island had come 
from the West. When we come to the group of documents 


next in point of time, the contents of certain pits and graves 
at Camirus, which seem to belong to the seventh century b. a, 
we find metal-work similar to the Ephesian and like it to 
be most reasonably derived from a sub- Aegean source. But 
we find also pottery into which a new element of figure- 
decoration has been introduced, and ivories and objects in 
composite material also inspired by some non- Aegean art. 
Though there is an Asiatic element, especially in the ceramic 
decoration, the main ultimate source of this alien influence 
is unquestionably Egypt. Especially in the ivories do we 
note strong Nilotic characteristics ; and quite a considerable 
number of figurines, amulets, scarabs and the like composite 
objects, either of Egyptian workmanship or closely imitated 
from Egyptian models, were found on the site. Similar 
imitations have been found in the greatest numbers at 
Naukratis, in the successive excavations of that site carried 
out since 1884: and that fact certainly suggests that not 
Phoenicians so much as Graeco-Egyptians are to be held 
responsible for the Nilotic features in the archaic art of 
Rhodes and of other parts of Greece. We know that 
natives of south-western Asia Minor were both frequent 
visitors to, and residents in, the Nile valley at least as early 
as the accession of the Saite Pharaohs. They had a quarter 
and a camp at Memphis, inscribed the legs of a colossus in 
Nubia in a local alphabet (probably of Rhodes itself) in the 
seventh century, and established trading posts on the Cano- 
pic Nile long before Amasis confined them to Naukratis. 
Since, moreover, at the latter place they came under the 
full influence of that Deltaic civilization which, as we are 
learning more and more every day, absorbed into it much 
that was Mesopotamian in origin, they can quite well have 
transmitted to Rhodes, Anatolia and European Greece 
even the Asiatic element in their archaic Hellenic art. 

The effect of this anti-Semitic criticism is to reduce the 
part played by the Phoenicians among the Greek isles and 
coasts, when Hellenism was in the making, to that of mere 
huckstering traders, who followed sea-ways opened long ago 
by others. At most they established factories rather than 


colonies at a few points, such as Kit ion in Cyprus, and these 
on sufferance. The evidence certainly raises no sort of 
presumption that they could have had any share worth 
mentioning in teaching the Greeks to be an artistic people. 
Nor, if we turn to the actual remains of Phoenician art for 
evidence, does what we find support, either by its date 
or by its character, any such presumption. The knowledge 
which we possess of that art, as practised in the homeland 
of Syria or in lands undoubtedly dominated at any period 
by Phoenicians, such, for example, as the central littoral 
of North Africa, is limited to a period much later than even 
Homer. All Phoenician products of an earlier age have to 
be taken on trust, partly from the Homeric references them- 
selves, partly from a small number of statements made by 
later Greek and Roman writers. Some of these are trace- 
able to Homer himself, others to Phoenician records trans- 
lated into Greek by such authors as Menander of Ephesus 
and Philo of Byblus. There are also certain references in 
Hebrew history, as given both in the Old Testament and in 
the works of Josephus, who, however, seems to have used 
largely Menander's compilation. But, when we begin to be 
able to study its actual documents, we find Phoenician art 
so entirely derivative and imitative, and, moreover, so barren 
of variety, that we are unable to believe that it was 
ever independent or progressive. Future excavations may 
modify this judgement by adducing early evidence, now 
undreamed of, from Sidon, Aradus, Tyre and the western 
Phoenician colonies. But time goes on, and Phoenician soil 
remains almost as barren as ever. True, there has been 
but limited facility for research. Some digging, however, 
has been done at Sidon and Tyre, and the surface of the 
country has long ago been thoroughly explored. Tunisia 
has been in French hands for almost a generation, but early 
Carthaginian art is still represented by coarse, provincial 
work, slavishly subservient to Egyptian influence. 

In fine, we remain in no position to judge by comparative 
standards that art-work of the early Tyrian age which 
Hebrew tradition so greatly glorified. There are no 


material Semitic remains to speak to the existence 
of anything that can be called culture in Phoenicia until 
a period when Ionian society must have already reached 
an adolescent stage. There is nothing — no monument, 
no coin, nor anything else — older than the ninth century 
*at the very earliest. In particular, there is no known 
specimen of Phoenician writing of as early a date as 900 
B. c. I am not losing sight of the fact that both the 
Egyptian and the Homeric references, as well as those in 
th#j01d Testament, witness to the Phoenicians having been 
a more or less civilized people some centuries before that. 
But none of these references prove, what all the archaeo- 
logical documents tend to disprove, that there was such 
~ f an independent and progressive civilization among these 
Semites as was needed, if a decisive cultural effect was 
to be produced on such a stock as the early Ionian. 
Especially must we doubt whether the Phoenicians had 
any fully developed independent system of writing before 
the Ionian Migration had already taken place. 

As regards Ionia the sum of the matter may be stated 
thus. The absence of Egyptian cultural influence from the 
oldest products of Ephesus, the absence of actual Phoenician 
fabrics both there and in Rhodes, and Greek tradition that 
the Asiatic Greeks were educated in the ways of commerce 
by the peoples of the inner peninsula, constitute, all taken 
together, a formidable presumption that Eastern influences 
reached the coast by overland routes in far greater measure 
than by the sea-ways of the Levant. But the presumption 
is not final. The door must be left open to the Semites as 
possible carriers of Mesopotamian goods. If it could be 
proved that shortly before the opening of the first millen- 
nium b. c. the Phoenicians were detached from Egyptian 
influence, and were acting as the carriers of little else than 
Asiatic wares, their agency might still have been consider- 
able. And this, as it happens, is not at all an improbable 
case. It is a well-known fact that after the time of Barneses 
the Third, i. e. early in the twelfth century B.C., Egyptian 
records cease for a time to mention direct relations with 


Asiatic peoples. We hear no more thenceforward of wars 
with those strong Kheta confederacies, which had been 
disputing Syria with the Pharaohs since the middle of the 
Eighteenth Dynasty. The obvious, and probably the true, 
explanation of this change is the rise of the Kingdom of 
Israel in the zone between Syria and the Nile valley. This 
kingdom, while it remained vigorous, acted as a buffer 
state. If so, then central and northern Syria must once 
more have fallen completely under influences of Mesopo- 
tamia, which, for that matter, had always been potent ainong 
the western Semites. For, even at the height of the Egyptian 
Empire in Asia, they seem never to have used the Egyptian 
hieroglyphic system. In Philistia we find a linear signary 
allied to the Aegean system, and in Phoenicia, among the^ 
educated classes, cuneiform writing. In the northern 
interior the Hittite hieroglyphic system was always supreme, 
with cuneiform as an alternative. 

The products, therefore, which the coastal Semites would 
have been conveying westward about the date of the Ionian 
Migration, were most likely to have been of Mesopotamian 
character. The first known political contact between 
Phoenicia and Assyria falls as late as the ninth century in 
the reign of Ithobal, King of Tyre. But those 'Assyrian 
cargoes ', which Herodotus says the Phoenicians began 
to carry soon (avrUa) after their establishment on the 
Syrian littoral, might have come down to the west coast 
by caravan routes long before that. The progress of re- 
search in north Syria is revealing ever more clearly the 
importance of an inland civilization, geographically inter- 
posed between Phoenicia and Mesopotamia, which was in 
full vigour in the latter part of the second millennium B.C. 
To judge by its remains, great and small, it must have been 
exceedingly productive. This is that southern ' Hittite ' 
civilization of which I have spoken already in connexion 
with Cappadocia. The place which, in the Assyrian records 
referring to the Hatti, appears always as their capital, 
must have been a great trade centre We can infer as 
much from the simple fact that a standard of weight,* the 


maneh or mina of Carchemish, was so named, and in common 
use in the populous centres of Mesopotamia. Carchemish 
was situated on the Euphrates itself, at a much-used crossing 
of the river, and according to the interpreters of Egyptian 
and cuneiform texts, on the right or Syrian bank. If so, 
there is no doubt that it is represented by the large fortified 
site of Jerabis, about fifteen miles down stream from Birejik. 
Here are to be seen a great artificial mound, overhanging 
the river, city walls enclosing a horseshoe, whose longest 
diameter is nearly half a mile, a massive cyclopean re- 
vetment to pen back the Euphrates, and four sculptured 
slabs of very good Hittite-Assyrian style, standing or lying 
in a deep trench made nearly thirty years ago at the foot of 
the Acropolis. Other monuments, found at the same time, 
were s^nt to the British Museum, and these testify sufficiently 
by their hieroglyphic inscriptions, as well as by their artistic 
style, to the Hittite character of the site. They remain the 
finest sculptures yet found in all the area of Hittite civiliza- 
tion, and though they display the unmistakable character- 
istics of Hittite art, they show also, as might be expected, 
very marked influence of Mesopotamia. Above the level 
of the Hittite city lie considerable remains of a town of the 
Christian time, whose identity is not certain. Its presence 
argues the long-continued importance of this site as com- 
manding a crossing of the Great River. 

Nor is this the only important Hittite site in Syria. Both 
banks of the Euphrates, during the hundred miles of its 
middle course, from the point where it emerges from the 
Taurus mountains to that where it enters the desert, show 
one uninterrupted series of flat-topped mounds, a fresh 
one rising every few miles ere sight of the last has been 
lost ; and in three or four of these chance has brought to 
light Hittite monuments. From the great earth-mound of 
Samosata to that crowned by the castle of Kalat en-Nejm, 
the whole series is Hittite. If you leave the river for central 
Syria, similar mounds will almost never be out of your 
sight on any road you choose to travel from the upper 
Orontes valley, where lies the site of Kadesh, about to be 


excavated by the French, to the Taurus at Marash. Pro- 
fessor von Luschan, the excavator of Sinjerli, has told me 
that he counted not less than six hundred in north-western 
Syria alone. Some of the Syrian mounds, e.g. those at 
Hamah, Aleppo and Tell Bashar, which have yielded 
Hittite remains, are even larger than that at Jerabis. 

This vast group of desolate city sites, which mark the 
surface of north Syria and the adjacent border of Meso- 
potamia with a veritable eruption of earth-pimples, witnesses 
to the disappearance of an exceptionally well-developed 
society, one to which its command of the main continental 
routes from Egypt, from Mesopotamia and from Asia Minor, 
must have given great commercial and strategic importance. 
You need only take a passing survey of the region to 
understand why the Great Kings of Assyria so long and so 
patiently strove to possess it, and why the Hatti play 
so great a part in their annals. 

It is imperatively necessary, if we are to understand the 
transmission of culture influences of Mesopotamia and 
especially of weight-standards to the Mediterranean peoples, 
to learn more about this important intermediate civilization 
of north Syria. Not only small antiquities, which are 
picked up by scores on the surface of its sites, but certain 
of the larger monuments still in place are of types which 
hitherto would have been put down at sight as Phoenician. 
The inland Syrian civilization, I feel no doubt, ought to be 
credited, and will hereafter be credited, with the fabrication 
of a very great deal which has been ascribed, not only in 
modern times but in ancient, to the coastal Semites, simply 
because the latter were the chief carriers of it to the West. 
I have already said that I believe we have actually in the 
British Museum a notable group of north Syrian products, 
in the shape of the Nimrud ivories. On the middle Euphrates 
existed just such a society as could have produced them — 
one independent and vigorous, but for long in close touch 
with both the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian cultures, 
and probably at one time also in contact with that of the 
Aegean in the later Bronze Age. It is this society's direct 



or indirect influence, whose ultimate formative influence on 
Ionian art is illustrated by the Ephesian ivories. 

Till this year no excavation has been carried out in inland 
Syria except at Sinjerli, the mound which covers the remains 
of the chief town of a minor kingdom, Shamal. The culture 
which its monuments show is of the Hatti class, but no 
Hittite inscriptions have come to light, and the style of the art 
is provincial compared to the monuments of Jerabis. During 
this past spring a beginning has been made by Professor 
J. Garstang for the University of Liverpool on another large 
north Syrian site, that at Sakjegozu, about a day's march 
east of Sinjerli. The style of the sculptures so far uncovered 
is superior to those found at Sinjerli, but no Hittite inscrip- 
tions have yet come to light. Much is to be hoped from 
the further course of these excavations ; but more will come 
from Jerabis or another of the larger sites in the near 
neighbourhood of the Euphrates itself. There lay the focus 
of north Syrian society. There its culture joined hands 
with that of Mesopotamia. There we are most likely to 
find the bilingual texts which will solve the still insoluble 
riddle of the Hittite inscriptions. 



In this course, which I am about to conclude, I have 
brought to your notice a good deal of new evidence from 
very various quarters, but I do not claim to have pro- 
pounded many novel conclusions. So far as I understand 
their significance, the new facts concerning the origin of 
Hellenic civilization tend rather to define and clear up the 
truth of old theories than to suggest a fresh and revolutionary 
view. Not now, or by me, is it argued for the first time that 
the so-called miracle of the rise of Hellenism, early in the first 
millennium b. c, is to be explained by the re-invigoration of 
aboriginal societies settled for long previous ages in the 
Aegean area, and possessed of an ancient tradition and 
instinct of culture. Nor that this process was chiefly due 
to the blood and influence of an immigrant population of less 
impaired vigour, which had long been cognizant of and par- 
ticipant in the mid-European culture, and was itself both in 
origin and development related to the elder society of the 
Aegean area. Nor, again, that a secondary stimulus was 
imparted to the renascence, thus initiated, by influences 
of the living East, which were mainly Asiatic, and now found 
renewed and better opportunities of reaching the Aegean 
peoples, partly through the eastward expansion of the latter 
to the shores of Asia Minor, partly through the westward 
expansion of a Syrian coastal people, hitherto kept off the 
seas by the Minoan navies of Crete. These views have 
long been in the air. I do but offer fresh illustration of their 
premisses, and seek to give definition to their conclusions. 
Especially have I tried to render reasonably intelligible the 
appearance of such distant influences as the Mesopotamian 
in the Hellenic world. When Brunn said, in his History of 
Art, ' der Ionische Stil gehort Niniveh, vielleicht bereits 

g 2 


Babylon an,' he was boldly ignoring, with the instinctive 
conviction of genius, the then unbridged gulf between 
Mesopotamia and the Aegean at the opening of the Ionian 

In this matter of Oriental influences, as in several others, 
while able to adduce more probable explanations than could 
be offered a generation ago, I have, needless to say, left 
many questions open. The imperfect state in which the 
exploration of western Asia still remains renders it im- 
possible to do otherwise. We are far more often in a position 
to show that such and such facilities favoured the passage of 
Eastern influences by this route or by that, than to prove by 
actual documents found along the suggested routes, that thus 
they actually did pass. The two ends of the chain are very 
much better known than the intermediate links. I dare 
not, therefore, dogmatize by which main route, that over- 
hand, or that over the Levant sea, the Asiatic influences 
took their way to Ionia. For the really dynamic influences 
of Oriental civilization the overland route is strongly favoured 
by the evidence ; but this does not render improbable the 
arrival of mere models by way of the sea through the agency 
of Semitic carriers. 

There the question must, perforce, be left till Asiatic 
Turkey is opened as freely to exploration as Greece, Crete, 
Cyprus, and Egypt have been. In so saying I am neither 
oblivious nor unappreciative of the greatly increased facilities 
offered to explorers by the enlightened direction of the 
Imperial Ottoman Museum in these latter years. So far 
as it has lain in their power, Osman Hamdy Bey and his 
subordinates have encouraged research by scholars of all 
nationalities in Asiatic Turkey. They have, moreover* 
prepared a magnificent storehouse in Constantinople for 
the portable documents of antiquity. The hindrance has 
not come from those authorities. Nor, in my own experi- 
ence, except in isolated cases and for temporary and often 
good reasons, has it come directly from any officials of the 
central government. But the indirect effect of a very 
faulty provincial administration has been prohibitive. There 


have been too much local insecurity too imperfect control 
over the ignorant and jealous populations which are now 
seated in many of the regions most needing exploration, 
and too little assurance that valuable remains of antiquity, 
when re-exposed, would be protected from damage or 
destruction. Therefore, for the archaeological digger in 
particular almost all the Asiatic shores of the Mediterranean, 
not to mention those of Turkish North Africa, still offer virgin 
soil. We remain deplorably ignorant even of so accessible 
a coast as that of western Asia Minor, so far at least 
as those deep-lying strata are concerned which contain the 
documents of its earliest civilization. It is still as true as 
when Perrot wrote twenty years ago, that only one stratified 
primitive site in all Greek Asia has been explored to the 
bottom, namely Hissarlik. 

This being the case, I proceed to advance, with all possible 
reserve, a summary theory of the particular circumstances 
which contributed to the rise of that local but most brilliant 
development of Hellenism, which we call Ionian civilization. 
The elements which went to the making of the Ionian people 
I take to have been essentially the same as those which went 
to the making of all the Hellenes whatsoever. A mass of 
the old Aegean stock, which had long been participant in 
the prehistoric civilization of the Aegean Bronze Age, 
came to be leavened by an infusion of northern blood 
drawn from the area of mid-European culture. But the 
proportions of the mixture were not quite the same on the 
Asiatic coasts as in the Peloponnesus, for instance, or in 
classic Crete. The Aegean element was, I conceive, 
relatively very much more numerous and potent in the Ionian 
land, although, to a very large extent, not indigenous there. 
Subject to the notorious risk of pressing negative evidence, 
especially in regard to so ill-explored an area as Ionia, 
I suggest that its lack of Aegean remains does exclude the 
central coast of Anatolia from the credit of having shared 
in the Aegean civilization during almost all the Bronze Age. 
I believe that this coast was long dominated by an inland 
continental Power, that of the Cappadocian Hatti, who 


imposed their own distinct civilization and admitted the 
Aegean culture only as a faint influence ascending along 
trade routes. 

At some early epoch, however, had begun an infiltration 
of peoples from south-eastern Europe across the Thracian 
straits. I stated in my third lecture the evidence for their 
appearance so far back as sub-neolithic time. These 
gradually infused a European element into all the populations 
of the western peninsula, into the so-called Mysians, for 
example, into the Maeonians, into the Lydians, and into the 
Carians. The European element settled in especial strength 
about the Gulf of Smyrna, and may very likely, as Greek 
tradition represented in the Pelopid myth, have subsequently 
re-emigrated in part to Greece. So far, Curtius's Proto- 

+. Ionian theory is probably well founded. 

Y An important change began to operate upon this loose 
tribal society towards the close of the second millennium 
B. c. Owing to Assyrian pressure the dominant continental 
society, whose centre was in Cappadocia, shrank inwards and 
ceased to dominate the western coasts. Nor did a secondary 
inland society, the Phrygian, which succeeded to the hege- 
mony on the plateau, make itself felt on the Aegean shores 
as the Cappadocian had done. Much about the same time 
and possibly propter hoc, in some measure, as well as post 
hoc, the first of the northern waves which were to wash 
over western Greece and the isles, the Achaean, began to 
surge southwards. The result was twofold. On the one 
hand Achaean sea-rovers themselves made their appearance 
on the north-western shores of Asia Minor, overcame the 
local centre of Aegean power at Hissarlik, and made 
possible the subsequent * Aeolic ' colonies. On the other 
hand, fragments of Aegean populations were pressed out 
of mainland Greece and the isles by the northern invasion 
and began to find their way over to the shores of central 
and south-western Anatolia. These brought with them 
that late Aegean culture of which traces have been found in 
Rhodes and in Caria, and these originated the Greek tradition 
that the latter district had been colonized by Minoan settlers 


from Crete, and that ' Carians ' once held the command of 
the Aegean Sea. 

It is to be expected that further exploration of the 
very ill-known Carian region, long rendered peculiarly 
uninviting by the brigandage which followed the break-up of 
the jurisdiction of the Mentesh dere beys, will show that this 
late Minoan immigration was numerous and considerable 
enough to account for those elements in cult-usages and in 
nomenclature which have long been remarked as common 
to historic Caria and to prehistoric Crete. Those epithets, 
historic and prehistoric, I apply advisedly. All the evidence 
gathered in this past decade of Aegean discovery reveals 
the common elements in Crete ages before we can discern 
them in Caria. If the deities who bore the double-axe, 
the Goddess with her Son in Crete, and Zeus Labrandeus in 
Caria, are to be derived from one another, it is the latter 
that is derivative. The Carian place-names ending in 
-ndus, -nda, -nthus, and so forth, which Kretschmer holds 
to be not Indo-European and to belong to the older stratum 
of the population, make their appearance earlier in the 
Cretan Labyrinth and in other Aegean names. The Carian 
alphabet has left no epigraphic evidence of its use till well 
into the first millennium b. c. ; and Mr. Evans thinks that 
certain of its forms actually show derivation from the 
Minoan linear script which was in use nearly a thousand 
years earlier. 

Upon this amalgam of Asiatic, European, and Aegean 
races supervened at the last the Ionian Migration, which was 
itself an amalgam. What exactly we are to understand 
by that Migration, when it began and when it ended, it is 
very difficult to say. Certainly it did not pass in any one 
great horde. All the recorded traditions of the Hellenic 
cities of Asia point to successive arrivals of comparatively 
small parties, which did not always pitch at once on their 
ultimate abiding-places. Migrations by sea, in the infancy 
of navigation, were probably never undertaken by much 
larger bodies than those which first landed in America. 
Their reports, slowly filtering back, brought other parties 


in their wake. The landings in Asia probably went on for 
several generations, departures being determined by events, 
political and social, which took place at considerable intervals 
of time on the mainland of Hellas and in the isles. The 
first departure may have been due to the Achaean influx 
into Greece. Greek tradition did, in fact, attribute the 
Ionian Migration to the overcrowding of Attica with refugee 
elements from the War of Troy ; and it represented it as 
composed of an extraordinary number of racial elements, 
among which one notes with interest Minyae of Orchomenus 
whose Aegean character is unquestioned, and Cadmeians, 
Pelasgi and others who were hardly less certainly part of 
the older population. Note further that the date thus 
assigned by tradition, fits with the indications in Homer. 
The Epics, it has often been remarked, show not only no 
knowledge of a Hellenic Asia but also none of a Dorian 
conquest of Peloponnesus. They were probably anterior in 
original composition to the establishment of both those 
states of things. The society they reflect is the prime of 
the Achaean in its new home, and the moment probably that 
of the first adventuring of the mainland peoples oversea. 
Their leaders were Achaeans, but they themselves were not 
all of their leaders' race. If the Greek tradition in regard 
to the remnants of the Trojan expedition, which were 
collected in Attica after the war, is to be credited at all, 
it certainly implies that the European forces before Troy 
had been by no means purely Achaean. 

In such a sense I take the Ionian Migration to be historical. 
There is no reason whatever to discredit it, if it be borne 
in mind that nothing is so congenial to popular tradition 
as to crystallize a series of successive events into a single 
one. Thus, for example, the Dorian conquest of the 
Peloponnesus was envisaged as one cataclysmic event, the 
Return of the Heraclidae, although Greek literature from 
Homer onwards bore unconscious witness to the fallacy. 
For the Dorians had been coming south in small parties 
for several generations, and were already an element in the 
population of Crete when the Odyssey was composed. 


It is almost always so with such migrations. Bodies of 
nomad Turks established themselves in Asia Minor genera- 
tions before the Seljuk conquest and centuries before the 
appearance of the Ottomans on the stage of history. They 
were present in south-eastern Europe also before there 
was any Turkish invasion of our continent. Remember 
this popular tendency to foreshorten history, and you will 
find nothing in the tradition of an Ionian Migration but 
what you would expect. The narrow and lean peninsula 
of Greece doubtless received during many generations an 
intermittent overflow of vigorous tribes from the inner 
European lands, tempted by the prospect of plundering 
a rich decadent society, or pressed out of earlier homes by 
some force majeure. Considerable and successive displace- 
ments of the older southern population must have ensued. 
Unable to withstand the iron weapons of the invaders, 
the weakest aboriginals would be reduced to serfdom ; 
the strongest would be apt to take ship and seek new 
homes. Even some of the new-comers would join or follow 
the emigrants in search of further fortune, and would be 
welcomed as leaders for their natural vigour and their 
better craft of war. But these would be a small numerical 
minority. They would in all likelihood have few or no 
women of their own folk with them, but would take women 
of the older population to their beds. The consequent 
children would learn of their mothers rather than of their 
fathers ; and the type of civilization which would develop 
in the new country would be in the main that of the 
elder race. 

An objector might demur at this point. What about the 
evidence of language ? If the elder race was in a great 
majority in Ionia, and even the children of the younger 
race learned to speak from Aegean mothers, would not the 
resultant vulgar speech be that of the elder race ? Yet 
the historic speech was, in fact, Greek, as all the world knows. 
The objection is reasonable ; but it does not necessarily hold 
good. Language is shown by experience to be changed by 
conquest more easily than type of civilization. Take this 


same land of Asia Minor at this day. What has become 
of Greek speech among ninety-nine hundredths of its people ? 
The same fate has befallen that speech which once befell its 
inland languages at the hands of the Greeks. The Turkish 
conquering minority has imposed its tongue on the aborigines 
of Ionia, Lydia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia alike. Yet the 
type of civilization and the fundamental cult-beliefs of the 
people are not those of the true Turks. Compare also 
the well-known linguistic result of the conquest of Egypt 
by a very small number of Arabs. Ere the migrations 
to Asia began, the speech of all mainland Greece may very 
well have already become that of the northern conquerors. 
The objector's question can also be countered with 
another. What do we know about the language of pre- 
Achaean Greece ? Even if the Minoan tablets could be 
interpreted, they would not necessarily inform us with 
certainty on the point. Crete may well have had a very 
different tongue, as different as that remote offshoot of 
Indo-Germanic speech, expressed in the three uninterpreted 
inscriptions of Praesos, is from the language of the Gortynian 
Laws. The most aboriginal and conservative population 
of mainland Greece in the eyes of the later Hellenes was the 
Arcadian. Its historic dialect was very near that in which 
the Homeric Epics are written, and very near that of Cyprus 
also, which was expressed in a syllabic character, certainly 
a survival of the Minoan script. How do we know that 
this Arcadian dialect does not represent a prehistoric 
tongue once spoken over a large part of the Aegean area, 
if not in Crete ? Professor Conway, at any rate, believes 
this was the case. Or, again, how do we know that the 
common speech of later Hellas was originally that of the 
younger rather than of the elder element in the race ? We 
know, in fact, nothing of the prehistoric tongues of central 
Europe, nothing more than we know of the prehistoric 
Aegean tongues. We cannot say whether these two families 
were kin or not, and whether or no they differed widely. 
Nor can we say of which tongue the later Greek dialects were 
a development ; or whether they were a development of 


both tongues ; or, what proportion of each elder tongue 
was retained. Later Greek speech may have been funda- 
mentally mid-European, largely contaminated with Aegean 
survivals ; or it may have been fundamentally Aegean with 
mid-European intrusions, as our own language is funda- 
mentally Anglo-Saxon largely contaminated by the speech 
of Norman conquerors. Whatever be the facts, they are 
too problematical at present for any valid argument for 
or against the sub-Aegean character of Ionian civilization 
to be based on linguistic grounds. 

Some, who have listened to me throughout, may be 
inclined to think I have made too much case of Aegean 
civilization. There is a well-known tendency to find one 
formula to explain all things, and an equally notorious one 
to overwork the latest formula. But I submit that these 
lectures are not the result of either of those tendencies. 
In any case I protest that I have not been influenced by the 
principle, omne ignotum pro magnifico. Aegean civilization 
is no longer among ignota, as things prehistoric go. Thanks 
to the richness of many of its sites and their abundant 
preservation of all sorts of remains, coupled with the fact 
that most of these sites remained virgin until a generation 
on which scientific opinion had already imposed the obligation 
to excavate in a spirit of scientific impartiality ; thanks, too, 
to the not inconsiderable light thrown back by the literature 
of the subsequent historic people of the area — we know 
relatively more about Aegean civilization than we do about, 
say, Mesopotamian. There remain many things uncertain 
and many things unknown ; but there can hardly be any 
aspect of its social life that has not now been illustrated, 
or any general class of its products of which we have not 
discovered examples. We know the latter, indeed, more 
minutely and more exactly than we know the products 
of the subsequent archaic Hellenic Age. 

And how far does this knowledge justify a wide applica- 
tion of the Aegean formula to the elucidation of the pre- 
historic civilization of the Nearer East ? Not only is the 
dominance of this civilization over the Aegean area, during 


all the prehistoric period of human productivity, back to 
the neolithic age, placed beyond question by the evidence 
of the deeper strata wherever they have been tapped, but 
we can see that its influence ranged extraordinarily widely 
outside that area, at any rate in its later period. In the 
western Mediterranean lands it has long been an accepted 
fact of archaeology that prehistoric Sicily was permeated 
by its latest influence — a fact which illustrates and to some 
extent explains the Greek tradition that Minos and his 
Cretans themselves sailed to Sicily, and that there the last 
king of Aegean Crete met his death. Hardly less con- 
spicuous is the late Aegean influence in the cemeteries of 
southern Italy, and among the antiquities even of the north- 
east of the peninsula, the basin of the Po and the Venetic 
province. We find it in Sardinia, and also, according to 
the latest researchers, in the prehistoric strata of southern 

In the eastern Mediterranean, Aegean culture was even 
more potent, and the penetration of alien societies by its 
home products more frequent. We have yet to learn what 
effect it had on the nearest coast of Africa, the Cyrenaic, and 
for that reason, if no other, earnestly hope that the new era 
in Turkey may soon result in the opening of this territory to 
the archaeological explorer. But about Aegean penetration 
of the Nile valley there is no longer a shadow of doubt, and 
continual fresh discoveries of Aegean products on Egyptian 
sites show that we do not even yet know the full measure of 
it. There has been so much said on this subject since the 
days when Professor Flinders Petrie found Cretan sherds 
in the south-eastern Fayum among remains of the Twelfth 
Dynasty, and fragments of above eight hundred Aegean 
vases on the Eighteenth Dynasty site of El-Amarna, that 
I need only call your attention to the further evidence 
obtained by Egyptian excavators in the last two seasons. 
At Abydos, where Professor Petrie had already found 
evidence of commerce with Crete under the Old Empire, 
Professor Garstang opened, in the spring of 1907, a tomb 
of the Twelfth Dynasty which contained a perfect vase 


of the peculiar and unmistakable polychrome fabric of 
Crete in the Middle Minoan age. From a settlement of the 
same period at Rifeh, a little lower down the valley and 
not far from Assiut, Professor Petrie recovered about the 
same time other painted Aegean sherds. The same explorer, 
whose eyes were the first to be opened to this class of remains 
in Egypt, had already obtained others from his excavations 
at Tell el-Yahudieh at the apex of the Delta. More than 
one Aegean vase has also come lately into the hands of 
Cairene dealers, probably from Deltaic sites. It is not 
too much to say that there is seldom any considerable 
excavation made nowadays in Egyptian strata of the 
period from the Old Empire to the Twentieth Dynasty, 
in which Aegean objects are not found. Nor was there 
only importation of such objects. As Professor von Bissing 
and Professor Naville have observed, there was local 
imitation of Aegean ceramics and Aegean reliefs in Egypt ; 
and some have long maintained that the singular natural- 
istic art, which marked the reign of Amenhetep IV at El- 
Amarna, was due to the same source whence came the 
enormous profusion of non-Egyptian painted vases found 
on the site. 

To the Aegean objects found on sites in Philistia and 
southern Palestine I have already alluded. At Gezer and 
Tell es-Safl were unearthed both Aegean and distinctively 
Cypriote pottery, a sword of the Aegean horned form and 
(as a very competent observer, Dr. Duncan Mackenzie, who 
visited the excavations, reports) ground-plans of buildings 
showing well-known Aegean features. If Mr. Evans gains 
acceptance for his theory that the linear characters, incised 
on sherds found at Tell el-Hesy, are derived from the Minoan 
linear script, and that, directly or indirectly, both the 
north and the south Semitic systems owned the same 
parentage, the evidence of Aegean penetration will be 
stronger still. About Aegean influence on Phoenicia I 
have spoken likewise. Long ago Monsieur Heuzey of the 
Louvre pointed out the obvious relation between certain 
terra-cottas, found on the Lebanon littoral, and a well- 


known Cypriote class. Since we now know that the latter 
class derived its character not from Phoenician originals 
but from the indigenous sub-Aegean art of the island itself, 
these Phoenician terra-cottas are good evidence of that 
Aegean influence which is reasonably to be looked for on 
the Asiatic mainland in the near neighbourhood of so 
productive a centre of Aegean art as Cyprus. 

Finally, omitting Asia Minor, whose case, being the one 
sub ivdice, would involve the argument in a vicious circle, 
let me remind you of that large continental area in south- 
eastern Europe, which produces such abundant remains 
of a culture closely akin to the Aegean. This area radiated 
influence in its turn to the far north and west, to inspire 
the beautiful ornamentation of prehistoric Scandinavia and 
of Keltic art in Ireland and Great Britain. A full know- 
ledge and a right understanding of Danubian and Balkan 
antiquities are of peculiar importance to the problem under 
discussion. The evidence indicates that we have to do not 
with a culture derived from the Aegean, but with a local 
independent development, which proceeded along lines 
closely parallel to the course of the latter. If we cannot 
yet venture to say certainly that the Danubian and Aegean 
peoples were kin, we can see clearly that their cultures 
were so closely related that, in a rough and large classification, 
they might well be grouped together as one. The whole 
of south-eastern Europe and the Isles might be marked as 
the common area of an Aegeo-Danubian civilization. 

The Aegean culture, which had occupied thus completely 
the later Hellenic area, enveloping it with influences radiating 
to points more distant than the Hellenic would reach again 
for many centuries, would have had to be reckoned with 
first and foremost in the problem of the origins of Greek 
civilization, even had it attained to a far less high stage 
of culture than its remains compel us to credit. These, 
however, speak to a degree of social achievement which 
must have left, in the area of its prevalence, a mark as deep 
and ineffaceable as those left by the Nilotic and Meso- 
potamian civilizations. If this seems to you too strong a 


statement, consider for one moment both the spirit and the 
execution of the best products of Aegean art that have 
been recovered. Take as examples, among many, the ivory 
figurines and faience reliefs of Cnossus, or the carved steatite 
vases of Hagia Triada ; the polychrome egg-shell pottery of 
the ' Kamares ' class, or the goldsmiths' work on the Vaphio 
cups and the Mycenae dagger-blades ; the gem-cutters' 
work on the finest intaglios, or the painted scenes on the 
great sarcophagus from Hagia Triada. You have to go 
to the ' Sheikh el-beled ' statue at Cairo, if you would 
find a parallel to the naturalistic execution of the tiny 
Cnossian ivories : to the best animal sculptures of the 
Eighteenth Pharaonic dynasty, and the supreme moment of 
Assyrian art, as illustrated by the lion-hunt of Assur- 
banipal, or by the enamelled reliefs of Shalmaneser the 
Second's time at Assur, if you are seeking worthy com- 
parisons with the Cnossian plaque which shows a wild nanny- 
goat suckling her kid. But when you pass on to the Hagia 
Triada cups, and the Kamares pottery, you find yourself 
at a loss. There is no such naturalistic 'treatment of the 
human form in relief among the remains of either Egyptian 
or Mesopotamian art, not even at El-Amarna ; and there 
is no ceramic fabric of any ancient Oriental civilization really 
comparable to the best * Kamares ' ware. Nor again have 
we outside the Aegean any such examples of pictorial inlay 
work in gold alloys, as that lavished on the Mycenae blades. 
It is especially significant, that whenever a critic has essayed 
comment on the Aegean artist's effort to realize the ideal 
by close study of nature — such an effort as that which 
transformed foreign models on the gaming-casket of Enkomi, 
or in the lotus decoration on a Cretan vase from Zakro — 
he has invariably had to come far down the ages to find 
something worthy to be compared. The finest period of 
later Hellenic art, not any period of Oriental art, has always 
seemed to offer the earliest standard of comparison. 

Or, leaving the fine arts, without mention of a tithe of the 
various techniques, look to the Aegean mastery of more 
practical things. Consider the sanitary and hydraulic 


appliances of the Cnossian palace, or the structural skill 
which could pile story above story and fashion the broad 
stairways flight after flight. Consider the arithmetical 
knowledge of fractional and proportional values clearly 
attested by the entries on the Cnossian tally-tablets. Take 
account of the evidence of a highly civilized and sumptuous 
social life which must be inferred from the wealth of decora- 
tion lavished on all sorts of furniture, great and small, from 
the elaborate dress of women, from the representations of 
sports and scenes of festivity, from the importation of the 
products of distant civilizations. I need not labour the 
argument. You cannot pass an hour in the museum of 
Candia, or the Mycenae room at Athens, without feeling 
that you are in presence of products of a civilization whose 
tradition would have died very hard, even had it been 
attacked by men utterly barbarian. But barbarian, as I 
have already suggested, those who did attack it were in all 
probability far from being. To substantiate this statement 
let me dwell for a few minutes, ere concluding, on the mid- 
European antiquities which are probably not very familiar 
to you, having been published in part in somewhat in- 
accessible treatises. 

Those which concern our problem consist in pottery, 
weapons, terra-cotta figurines and other objects of the late 
Neolithic, Bronze, and earliest Iron Ages. For it was in 
the last of these periods that we must suppose the chief 
southward migrations to have taken place, if, as is universally 
assumed, the Aegean societies were overcome by the 
northerners' use of iron weapons. Certainly Homer's 
Achaeans, whom we regard as the first main wave of migrants, 
are represented as knowing iron, though the use of bronze 
was still common ; and in certain Cretan and Attic tombs, 
dated by their pottery to the last centuries of the second 
millennium B.C., the two metals have been found together. 
If this view be correct, as there is every reason to think, all 
the evidence found on the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and 
earliest Iron Age sites in the Danube basin has to be 
taken into account when we are dealing with the northern 


migrants who descended on Greece at the end of the 
Aegean Age. 

These sites lie across virtually the whole continental 
space from the northern shore of the Black Sea to the 
eastern Alps. No migratory people could have entered 
the Balkan Peninsula during the periods stated without 
coming into some contact with the culture to which these 
sites bear witness. Their northern boundary, so far as known 
at present, runs from Kieff in Russia to the Attersee in 
south-western Austria, and the areas in which similar sites 
have been found include Bessarabia, Roumania, Servia, 
and Bosnia. Nor is this all. A series of similar sites comes 
south through Thrace into north-western Asia Minor and 
through Macedonia into Thessaly. The First City at Hissarlik 
and the cemetery of Yortan in Mysia appear to belong to 
the group ; so do the earliest remains on several Thessalian 
sites, e. g. Dimini, Sesklo, and the hillock of Zerelia lately 
explored by two members of the British School at Athens, 
Messrs. Wace and Droop. 

On almost all these sites the earliest human products are 
neolithic, and show such local varieties of form and ornament 
that they must be regarded as, in the main, of local manu- 
facture. That is to say, there was production taking place 
at scores of places all over south-eastern Europe at a very 
remote date, long before that of the Hellenic migrations. 
Nor was it by any means only the rudest sort of production. 
At Butmir in Bosnia, in a cemetery where no metal occurred, 
were found vases with both moulded and incised returning- 
spiral decoration, which is as finely drawn and artistically 
disposed as any of the simpler spiral ornamentation known 
anywhere : also fragments of clay figurines showing con- 
siderable skill in modelling the human form, and very fine 
chipped flints and polished stone weapons. Nor are spirals 
the only ornament. There is great variety of geometric 
patterns, often picked out in white by powdered filling. 
Clay idols found under similar circumstances at Cucuteni 
in Roumania show a most elaborate decoration of lines 
following the contours of the figure and producing the effect 



of tattooed skin. But the crown of Danubian neolithic 
decoration is represented by the Bessarabian pottery found 
at Petreny by Dr. von Stern, with its beautiful violet 
pigment on reddish-brown ground, its beginnings of poly- 
chromy, and its not ill-drawn representations of animal 
forms and even the human figure. 

Some have maintained that this Danubian neolithic work 
is much later than Aegean decorated neolithic ; but the 
best authority, Dr. Hoernes, holds the former to be even 
the earlier. It may be pointed out that the stratification of 
the Hissarlik mound, where the lowest layer of sub-neolithic 
time contains ware closely akin to the Danubian, and 
whorls incised with symbols remarkably like those noticed 
at Tordos in Transylvania, tells very strongly in favour 
of the Danubian neolithic period having been about as 
early in time as the Aegean. In any case it will hardly be 
maintained by any serious archaeologist that it was not 
long anterior to the supposed date of the southward Hellenic 
migration. And if no more than that be conceded, it is still 
amply sufficient for our present purpose. 

With the appearance of bronze there is evidence of rapid 
advance in fabric and decoration, as the fine clay cups of 
Lengyel in Hungary, the weapons, vessels, and toilet objects 
in bronze of Glasinatz in Bosnia, and the terra-cottas of 
Klitzevatz in Servia, are enough to prove, even without the 
remarkable contents of the earlier graves opened at Hallstatt 
in the Salzkammergut on the western frontier of the 
Danubian area. And analogies to Bronze Age products of 
the Aegean become so frequent and close that it is difficult 
not to infer some intercourse and communication of influences 
between the two civilizations, even if there had been none 
in neolithic times. Some authorities, indeed, e. g. von 
Stern, think even that the neolithic art of the Aegean was 
derived from inner Europe, through some migratory move- 
ment. But the curious fact that neolithic products are 
rudest in Crete, and progress in excellence up through 
Melos and the Cyclades to the Balkans, favours rather the 
reversal of this derivation. In any case, however, indepen- 


dent origins in art so primitive as the neolithic are the more 
probable. The interesting series of parallel Bronze Age 
forms and decorative motives, set out by Reinhold Freiherr 
von Lichtenburg in his Beitrage zur altesten Geschichte von 
Kypros in the Proceedings of the Berliner Vorderasiatische 
Gesellschaft for 1906, ought to be consulted by every one 
interested in the problem of Hellenic origins. 

The transition to the Iron Age is best attested by the great 
mass of the Halls tatt objects, among which are many which 
remind us of the earliest known Hellenic bronzes, as well as of 
the earliest known Italian. The highest art of the latter is 
represented by the magnificent situlae of the Villanova type, 
first found near Bologna, in which we seem to see the 
meeting of two artistic influences of south and north, 
as in the steatite vases of Hagia Triada in Crete. That the 
movement of culture was rather to southward from the 
Danubian area, than to northward from the Mediterranean, 
there can be little doubt. The general direction of migrations, 
the long evolution of culture in the Danubian basin, and the 
comparative eclipse of Mediterranean art in the period 
immediately preceding the archaic Hellenic age, all support 
the theory of southward movement having been responsible 
for such analogies as are observed in Aegean and Danubian 
products. It is noteworthy that a similar eclipse seems 
to have occurred in the Danubian area soon after the 
local invention or adoption of iron. In some districts, 
especially those near the Black Sea, the eclipse began even 
earlier. The natural inference is that for a very long time 
barbarous peoples had been constantly pressing down from 
the vast Russian country upon the Danubian area, and that 
finally they more or less completely submerged its civilization. 

Such pressure would account for those secondary south- 
ward movements of Balkan peoples which resulted in the 
Achaean, Dorian, and Ionian invasions of the Greek and 
Anatolian peninsulas. These, composed of refugee elements 
long domiciled in the area of Danubian culture, brought 
with them its products and traditions to inspire new life 
into the flagging Aegean world. Though worsted in the 


struggle with the northernmost Europeans, we may 
reasonably suppose the invaders still to have been more 
vigorous and less developed than the southern peoples. 
It is the opinion of many authorities, but it cannot yet be 
proved by anthropological evidence, that the Danubian 
peoples were themselves drawn in a large measure from the 
same great human family to which the Aegean societies owed 
their fundamental stock. This was the small dark Medi- 
terranean Race, which seems to have been the most artistic 
of early mankind. This may be allowed to be a probable 
opinion, if large allowance be made for the contamination 
which age-long residence on the frontiers of another family 
must have entailed : for, certainly, the coloration of the 
Achaeans, as Homer describes them, points to some other 
and more northerly element in the earliest of the Hellenic 
migrations. In any case, however, it is absurd to suppose 
that any of the prehistoric societies of this debated region 
of the Nearer East, so desirable in the eyes of the popula- 
tions of the deserts, steppes, and forests of three continents, 
were still unmixed even in neolithic time. So far back as the 
anthropologist has been able to obtain evidence in Crete 
alone, he has found himself confronted by varieties of 
physical structure, which, whatever classification he adopts, 
forbid him to argue purity of race. 

Such was the culture of the Danubian and Balkan area. 
However it originated — and the evidence of neolithic settle- 
ments points strongly to spontaneous origin in the Aegean 
and Danubian areas respectively, and to subsequent develop- 
ments on parallel lines, conditioned by racial kinship, and 
modified perhaps by intercourse — it must have exercised 
a compelling effect on the migrants, who passed through its 
province, even if they did not spring from that province. 
And it had been there for ages before their final descent into 
the Aegean area. 

I alluded at the opening of this course to a feeling, still 
entertained by a few fervent Hellenists, especially in this 
country and in Germany, that it savours of profanity to 
affiliate the Hellenic to other civilizations — to give it, in fact, 


an earthly pedigree. That feeling deserves no considera- 
tion ; for nothing is more genuinely Hellenic than to try 
to make phenomena intelligible. The supposed pheno- 
menon of a savage horde, which had been moving westwards 
for long ages through central Asian deserts and Russian 
steppes, suddenly and spontaneously developing art so 
soon as it came into a certain stimulating natural environ- 
ment, and incontinently soaring to the highest artistic 
expression which the world has seen, is not intelligible, 
but among things miraculous. Progress is not so made 
per saltum even by a Chosen Race. But traced back on the 
one side to the immemorial culture of the Aegean, on the 
other to the vigorous culture of mid-Europe, the develop- 
ment of Greek civilization can be presented with all the 
depth of true perspective. We are not denying to the 
Hellenes anything that they made their own by detecting 
a premonition of their artistic spirit in the sculptures and 
paintings of prehistoric Crete. Nor shall we belittle their 
place in the story of human progress, if we suggest that their 
social and political ideals originated in that continental area, 
whose later tribal and communal organizations so greatly 
impressed the Romans when they first came to know the 
Germanic peoples. 



Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File." 
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU, Boston 












a m amsn